# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next > Rules Q&A truesight

## da newt

Truesight does not allow one to see through heavily obscured areas (fog, smoke, etc), right?

----------


## stoutstien

Raw wise this is correct

----------


## da newt

many thanks for the backup

----------


## Greywander

Truesight is still a form of sight. It can cut through illusion, darkness, and other things that impair sight, but not things that block it entirely. It doesn't let you see through walls, nor through fog.

----------


## Segev

"A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceives the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane."

Nothing there about seeing through fog or even heavy obscurement, only through normal and magical darkness.

----------


## sithlordnergal

Not gonna lie, I love the fact that Fog Cloud ends up being the king of vision impairment spells because of this. What's that? Truesight lets you see through all my illusion and darkness spells? Well see through this! -makes a 40ft radius cloud with a 2nd level spell slot-

----------


## Amnestic

Just need to deploy some special Fog dragons with Fogsight as a special sense.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Just need to deploy some special Fog dragons with Fogsight as a special sense.


Most Dragons have blindsight, do they not?

----------


## Mastikator

We need some kind of blindsight-disrupting jamming spell.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

My DM treated Truesight essentially as Blindsight, so in the final confrontation for a 2yr campaign, the end boss kept tossing me around so I couldn't really engage with it each turn, and when I finally activated my Reaction ability to Blind a monster that deals me damage, it actually FAILED its saving throw and I was so excited to actually have an impact lol. But then the DM was like "he still seems fully capable of seeing" and the big bad kept steamrolling us.

Afterwards he told me because he had truesight he could still see while blinded. Good times  :Small Frown:

----------


## Unoriginal

> My DM treated Truesight essentially as Blindsight, so in the final confrontation for a 2yr campaign, the end boss kept tossing me around so I couldn't really engage with it each turn, and when I finally activated my Reaction ability to Blind a monster that deals me damage, it actually FAILED its saving throw and I was so excited to actually have an impact lol. But then the DM was like "he still seems fully capable of seeing" and the big bad kept steamrolling us.
> 
> Afterwards he told me because he had truesight he could still see while blinded. Good times


Ooof. That's plain awful.

----------


## da newt

Why I asked:

In a WotC published AL module it states that a Marilith will teleport into the midst of the party and exploits it's truesight to do as much damage to the party as she can before they discover she is being protected by a visible magic - the entire area of the encounter is under the effect of a persistent FOG CLOUD spell.

Truesight doesn't allow a creature to see through heavy obscurement (FOG CLOUD), right? Teleport requires she can see her aim point ...

Is this just another example of the writers not knowing the rules or am I missing something?



The same TACTICS paragraph goes on to state that the Shadow Deamons will make use of the fog and dim light for hit and run tactics. Using Incorporeal Movement and Shadow Stealth, they attempt to gain advantage on their attacks. Seriously, do the publishers not understand that the shadow deamons can't see through the fog? I mean if someone dispells it, then the area is dim (unless the PCs have a light source) so they can try to hide and hope a PC is within reach when it's their turn ...

----------


## Keltest

> Why I asked:
> 
> In a WotC published AL module it states that a Marilith will teleport into the midst of the party and exploits it's truesight to do as much damage to the party as she can before they discover she is being protected by a visible magic - the entire area of the encounter is under the effect of a persistent FOG CLOUD spell.
> 
> Truesight doesn't allow a creature to see through heavy obscurement (FOG CLOUD), right? Teleport requires she can see her aim point ...
> 
> Is this just another example of the writers not knowing the rules or am I missing something?
> 
> 
> ...


Very likely, unless its actually an illusionary fog cloud instead of a regular one, which would indeed allow for these tactics.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Why I asked:
> 
> In a WotC published AL module it states that a Marilith will teleport into the midst of the party and exploits it's truesight to do as much damage to the party as she can before they discover she is being protected by a visible magic - the entire area of the encounter is under the effect of a persistent FOG CLOUD spell.
> 
> Truesight doesn't allow a creature to see through heavy obscurement (FOG CLOUD), right? Teleport requires she can see her aim point ...
> 
> Is this just another example of the writers not knowing the rules or am I missing something?
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed, it seems the writers didn't check the relevant rules.

As Keltest pointed out, if the fog was an illusion it would work as the adventure says it does, but not with the Fog Cloud spell.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Is this just another example of the writers not knowing the rules or am I missing something?


 Yep. 



> Very likely, unless its actually an illusionary fog cloud instead of a regular one, which would indeed allow for these tactics.


 Ooh, nice point.

----------


## Segev

Note that illusory fog would also probably be a permanent Major Image, and vulnerable to Investigation checks by PCs. And wouldn't need true sight to see through it for the demons, who doubtless know it is illusory and thus have long since made the Investigation checks.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> "A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, *automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them*, and perceives the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane."


As written, Truesight should allow the creature that posses the ability to automatically see through mundane  visual disguises and legerdemain.

A creature with Truesight, at the Magic Castle, will see all the tricks.
(http://www.magiccastle.com/)

----------


## Segev

> As written, Truesight should allow the creature that posses the ability to automatically see through mundane  visual disguises and legerdemain.
> 
> A creature with Truesight, at the Magic Castle, will see all the tricks.
> (http://www.magiccastle.com/)


"Visual illusions," in context, is referring to magic, not to legerdemain and sleight of hand. True sight will aso not help you tell that Mrs. Doubtfire is Robin Williams.

----------


## Psyren

If you want to enable that tactic by the Marilith, you can just give it blindsight out to a certain range, or the Blind Fighting fighting style. It shouldn't increase its CR too much.

----------


## Damon_Tor

> "Visual illusions," in context, is referring to magic, not to legerdemain and sleight of hand. True sight will aso not help you tell that Mrs. Doubtfire is Robin Williams.


It doesn't specify magical illusions. And it would be weird if the dragon could tell the orc that just walked into the room is really a changeling, but is stumped by a pair of Groucho glasses.

----------


## Keltest

> It doesn't specify magical illusions. And it would be weird if the dragon could tell the orc that just walked into the room is really a changeling, but is stumped by a pair of Groucho glasses.


Why? Truesight doesnt let you understand what youre looking at at all, and inciting a misunderstanding like that is the basis of nonmagical illusions like a disguise kit. Makeup isnt actually an illusion, its exactly what it looks like, but people sometimes dont look closely and make assumptions.

----------


## stoutstien

> It doesn't specify magical illusions. And it would be weird if the dragon could tell the orc that just walked into the room is really a changeling, but is stumped by a pair of Groucho glasses.


Eh. All seeing sight that doesn't also involve different levels of insanity are kinda bland. I'm all for dragons seeing through magic but can be tripped up with old fashioned tomfoolery. On brand.

----------


## Psyren

I agree truesight shouldn't defeat a mundane disguise. And dragons are naturally very perceptive regardless, so it's not like they necessarily need it to. You might slather on green paint but that won't make you smell like an orc for instance.

----------


## Snails

> It doesn't specify magical illusions. And it would be weird if the dragon could tell the orc that just walked into the room is really a changeling, but is stumped by a pair of Groucho glasses.


Stumped means what?  Just that this particular humanoid cannot easily be identified by sight.  The dragon does not know at a glance that he has met this humanoid before (or ditto regarding the future).  Most dragons have other means of identifying humanoids, if they want to put any effort into it.

But if you really want to play this way, that every possible kind of illusion or visual ambiguity is defeated, I do not feel strongly it would be bad.  Keep in mind that the True Seeing spell should be amended such that all secret doors are automatically spotted, regardless of the means by which it was hidden.  I would also give an improved ability to track creatures and improve your Perception check to avoid surprise.

----------


## Segev

Truesight allows creatures with it to see that their world is just a grid matt with marker on it, they and the PCs are figurines or pogs, and that towering humanoid figures control their every move.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Truesight allows creatures with it to see that their world is just a grid matt with marker on it, they and the PCs are figurines or pogs, and that towering humanoid figures control their every move.


LMAO

----------


## Greywander

> It doesn't specify magical illusions. And it would be weird if the dragon could tell the orc that just walked into the room is really a changeling, but is stumped by a pair of Groucho glasses.


Flavor is free, so there's no rule that says my disguise that I rolled a 30 on can't be nothing more than a pair of Groucho Marx glasses.  Likewise for Disguise Self.

In all seriousness, it depends on the tone of the campaign.  Anything less than grimdark could probably accommodate a Groucho Marx disguise at least once, maybe as a running gag.  Would be especially funny if it isn't a player, but an NPC fooling the players, who are slow to catch on.

----------


## Segev

> Flavor is free, so there's no rule that says my disguise that I rolled a 30 on can't be nothing more than a pair of Groucho Marx glasses.  Likewise for Disguise Self.
> 
> In all seriousness, it depends on the tone of the campaign.  Anything less than grimdark could probably accommodate a Groucho Marx disguise at least once, maybe as a running gag.  Would be especially funny if it isn't a player, but an NPC fooling the players, who are slow to catch on.


I strongly disagree that "anything less than grimdark" should permit such silliness. You can have a serious campaign whose humor is required to arise more organically than from cartoonish reality-warping without being grimdark.

Nothing says your mundane disguise has to be more than you sitting next to a disguise kit and thinking really hard about being disguised, true. Except, of course, common sense and the DM. Using "well, cartoonish humor says it should work at least once!" is not a very good argument. Especially when trying to claim that this is why truesight should penetrate mundane disguises.

Truesight lets you see what's really there. It does not tell you how to interpret what you see. It doesn't give you X-ray vision, either. If you see a man in a grey spandex suit with a blue cape and cowl, it won't tell you, "That's Batman;" you have to know enough about Batman to figure that out, yourself. It certainly won't let you see beneath the cowl to determine, "That's Bruce Wayne," nor past the fourth wall to realize, "That's an actor named Adam West." You might be able to come to these conclusions on your own, depending on what layer of reality you actually exist on (are you a character in the Batman TV series, or a real person watching said series?), but you don't get to just know these things without having experience enough to know the background facts and the skills to recognize things on your own.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Truesight lets you see what's really there. It does not tell you how to interpret what you see.


The fact that Truesight ability allows a creature to automatically detect visual illusions, and succeed on Saving Throws, I think directly counters this point.

The magic helps you detect, and instantly, and correctly assess what it is one is _actually_ viewing.

It seems incredibly on point for a creature with Truesight to be able to detect a concealed door hidden in a complicated tile mural by just looking at it.

If Truesight can divine that a cat is actually a Wildshaped Druid, it seems just as reasonable that the ability can immediately divine that even the best prosthetic nose is still a fugazi.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> The fact that Truesight ability allows a creature to automatically detect visual illusions, and succeed on Saving Throws, I think directly counters this point.
> 
> The magic helps you detect, and instantly, and correctly assess what it is one is _actually_ viewing.
> 
> It seems incredibly on point for a creature with Truesight to be able to detect a concealed door hidden in a complicated tile mural by just looking at it.
> 
> If Truesight can divine that a cat is actually a Wildshaped Druid, it seems just as reasonable that the ability can immediately divine that even the best prosthetic nose is still a fugazi.


Sooo, Truesight allows a creature to "automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic".

Do you consider a physical, mundane prosthetic nose to be an illusion? Is that nose a magical transformation? Do you consider a mundane hat, mundans makeup, and a pair of mundane groucho marx glasses to be a magical transformation or illusion?

If you do, that's an odd interpretation of an illusion/magical transformation, but Truesight will see through it.

If none of those are magical or an illsuion, Truesight can't see through it.

Also, a creature with Truesight cannot detect a concealed door hidden in a complicated tile mural by just looking at it. Normal Truesight doesn't give you that ability. Not even the Truesight spell lets you do that. A creature with the Truesight spell, and I quote, "notices secret doors hidden by magic".

A tile mural is not, on its own, magical. It could be made magical, but on its own it is not.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

The Merriam-Webster definition of Illusion:
_illusion
noun
il·​lu·​sion i-ˈlü-zhən 
plural illusions
1
a
(1)
: a misleading image presented to the vision : OPTICAL ILLUSION
(2)
: something that deceives or misleads intellectually
b
(1)
: perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature
(2)
: HALLUCINATION sense 1
(3)
: a pattern capable of reversible perspective
2
a
(1)
: the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : MISAPPREHENSION
(2)
: an instance of such deception
b
obsolete  : the action of deceiving
3
: a fine plain transparent bobbinet or tulle usually made of silk and used for veils, trimmings, and dresses_

A false nose would seem to meet the criteria of _both_ being a misleading image presented to the vision and a perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause a misrepresentation of its actual nature.

*I believe this sufficiently rebuts any charge of the word illusion being interpreted in an idiosyncratic manner.* 🃏  Natural Language for the win 🏆.

One interesting consequence of the Merriam-Webster definition of Illusion, is that it applies to dishonest or misleading arguments, which means having Truesight and being on Twitter would reveal whom is trolling. 😉

----------


## Segev

> The Merriam-Webster definition of Illusion:
> _illusion
> noun
> il·​lu·​sion i-ˈlü-zhən 
> plural illusions
> 1
> a
> (1)
> : a misleading image presented to the vision : OPTICAL ILLUSION
> ...


In the context of D&D, the natural language interpretation of "illusion" assumes it is magical, regardless of what you can find in a definition in a dictionary. Otherwise, we must assume that illusions in D&D are not necessarily magic, but are somehow optical illusions.

----------


## JNAProductions

Echoing Segev here.

Truesight lets you bypass most any magical concealment or trickeries, but it wont let you pierce wholly mundane tricks.

----------


## Psyren

I concur. "I put on Groucho Marx goggles and roll 30" is not an inherently bad way to play, but it's not one I would be allowing.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> In the context of D&D, the natural language interpretation of "illusion" assumes it is magical, regardless of what you can find in a definition in a dictionary. Otherwise, we must assume that illusions in D&D are not necessarily magic, but are somehow optical illusions.


That is your assumption, but your assumption is not definitive. (Respectfully)

There is no illusion keyword in 5e, limiting the word Illusion to a single  gaming meaning.  The designers were more than capable of specifying magical illusions, when writing the description of Truesight.

The designers chose not to.  More importantly, there has been no errata clarifying that the illusions referenced in the Truesight ability only was meant to apply to magical illusions.

I think the most parsimonious reading of the word Illusions is to take the word at face value, which would include mundane illusions.

True Seeing is a 6th level spell, which strongly suggests that Truesight is effectively a more powerful effect than raising the dead.

A 6th level spell effect being able to see through a false nose, seems entirely consistent with 5e power levels.

----------


## Keltest

> Echoing Segev here.
> 
> Truesight lets you bypass most any magical concealment or trickeries, but it wont let you pierce wholly mundane tricks.


Throwing my hat in here too. Nonmagical "illusions" like a disguise with makeup work by playing off assumptions, and truesight doesnt do anything about what conclusions you draw about what you see. The makeup and whatever really is there. Its your own interpretation that causes you to be deceived.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

*automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them*.

Wouldnt automatically succeeding on Saving Throws against Illusions, imply that indeed Truesight does influence your conclusions?

A creature with Truesight, could be under the effects of a Feeblemind spell, and thus have a Charisma and Intelligence of 1, and still automatically see through illusions.

No wrong conclusions possible, even if one is infirm in the brain.

----------


## JNAProductions

> *automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them*.
> 
> Wouldnt automatically succeeding on Saving Throws against Illusions, imply that indeed Truesight does influence your conclusions?
> 
> A creature with Truesight, could be under the effects of a Feeblemind spell, and thus have a Charisma and Intelligence of 1, and still automatically see through illusions.
> 
> No wrong conclusions possible, even if one is infirm in the brain.


Whats the save to bypass a mundane disguise?

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Whats the save to bypass a mundane disguise?


Good clap back! 

D20 Test seems to be the zeitgeist for the designers at the moment.
Imagine the ability stated automatically succeeds on D20 tests.which it is quite possible it will.

Even under current rules, automatically detecting illusions is a huge informational boon, that bypasses the need for some checks.

Imagine Sherlock Holmes is trying to infiltrate the Queens Gala ball whilst in a mundane disguise.  A fellow attendee has Truesight.   Truesight will automatically allow this attendee to know that Sherlock Holmes is in disguise.

Sherlocks identity would not be automatically revealed.(that would likely require some opposed ability check rolls), but the other attendee knows automatically that something is afoot, based off the disguise alone.

----------


## Greywander

> I strongly disagree that "anything less than grimdark" should permit such silliness. You can have a serious campaign whose humor is required to arise more organically than from cartoonish reality-warping without being grimdark.


All I meant was that even a serious campaign will have moments of levity, and a Groucho Marx disguise could be one of those.  It may even come with one of those moments where the NPC thinks they recognize you from behind, then turn you around and see your Groucho Marx glasses and say something like, "Sorry, I thought you were someone else."  And to be honest, if you're not familiar with Groucho Marx glasses, and they're actually done well enough to not be obviously fake, they could actually function as a disguise.  Maybe not if the rest of your outfit is rather distinctive, but if you already dress in nondescript clothing then a fake mustache or even just glasses could be enough to throw someone off.  Enough to require passing a DC 30 check?  Maybe not, unless the DM is choosing to allow it for the Rule of Funny.




> Nothing says your mundane disguise has to be more than you sitting next to a disguise kit and thinking really hard about being disguised, true. Except, of course, common sense and the DM. Using "well, cartoonish humor says it should work at least once!" is not a very good argument. Especially when trying to claim that this is why truesight should penetrate mundane disguises.


Just to be clear, I agree with you that truesight can't see through mundane disguises.  That's a separate issue from the Groucho Marx disguise, which is more about RPing a high roll as something stupid, and it has to work anyway because you rolled high.  Good for a moment of humor, but wears thin when overused.

That said, sometimes a high roll doesn't indicate super competence, only success.  (Just like a low roll doesn't indicate incompetence; often it could just be bad luck.)  It would actually be very fitting for the shy, nervous character who dumped CHA to RP complete BS on a high roll for a Deception check (e.g. "I need to go iron my dog") and just have the other character buy into it.  When people who aren't skilled are put under pressure, they can take some very big risks (because they have to in order to have a chance) and sometimes they pay off.  It would absolutely be an, "I can't believe that worked," moment.




> I concur. "I put on Groucho Marx goggles and roll 30" is not an inherently bad way to play, but it's not one I would be allowing.


Again, this is completely separate from the issue of truesight.  And yes, that would be more at home in a non-serious campaign.  In one campaign I was in, if everyone couldn't make it to the session we would play a side game that we described as "D&D GTA".  I was playing as a horse monk (just a normal horse), and we had both a zombie and the zombie's ghost as party members.  The zombie ate our first quest giver, who was promptly replaced by his identical twin brother.  That's the sort of game where you could get away with every single disguise just being Groucho Marx glasses.

You could also fluff Disguise Self as you wearing a real pair of Groucho Marx glasses, but the act of wearing them creates an illusion of a different disguise.  In such a case, someone with truesight would see through the illusion that you were wearing the glasses underneath.  It would actually be really fitting if the glasses were a material component for the spell.  This could also be a refluffed Hat of Disguise.  So there are ways to logically work it into a more serious game without it breaking the tone.




> Whats the save to bypass a mundane disguise?


I would assume it's whatever the disguised character rolled for their ability check with a disguise kit?  I don't see how that relates to truesight, am I missing something?

----------


## Segev

So, if any kind of illusion is seen through by Truesight, does that mean that if you're under the illusion that the villain is Bob, when it's really Steve, you'll suddenly know the villain is Steve, having seen through your own illusion? What about being under the illusion that you cast _simulacrum_ with the wrong components; do you suddenly see the right way to cast it, so you know how to do it now?

Because that's the kind of stretched definition of "illusion" being used to say, "well, mundane disguises and hiding things under rugs are illusions!"

----------


## Greywander

> So, if any kind of illusion is seen through by Truesight, does that mean that if you're under the illusion that the villain is Bob, when it's really Steve, you'll suddenly know the villain is Steve, having seen through your own illusion? What about being under the illusion that you cast _simulacrum_ with the wrong components; do you suddenly see the right way to cast it, so you know how to do it now?
> 
> Because that's the kind of stretched definition of "illusion" being used to say, "well, mundane disguises and hiding things under rugs are illusions!"


Is that a visual illusion?

I can say I'm accepting blood donations for the blood bank and show you a very real needle for drawing blood but actually I'm secretly a vampire grabbing a snack. Deception or just being wrong aren't illusions, even by the broadest definitions.




> In the context of D&D, the natural language interpretation of "illusion" assumes it is magical, regardless of what you can find in a definition in a dictionary. Otherwise, we must assume that illusions in D&D are not necessarily magic, but are somehow optical illusions.


I think I agree, while plenty of nonmagical illusions exist in real life, in D&D the word almost always refers to magic. That said, at some point they could introduce a nonmagical illusion ability, if they haven't already, so I do feel like they should have specified if it was only meant to apply to magical illusions. Would truesight peirce through a holographic projection, for example? I'm not actually sure.

A mundane disguise, though, is very much not an illusion. The mustache may be fake, but it is a real fake mustache. Though this does make me wonder about things like mimics.

Throwback to the time someone was arguing that truesight changed a creature's type because it let you see them "as they truly are". For example, if you cast Polymorph on a humanoid, they're now a beast, but this person was arguing that you could still target them as a humanoid (e.g. with Hold Person) because truesight let you see that they were actually a humanoid.

----------


## Keravath

> Very likely, unless its actually an illusionary fog cloud instead of a regular one, which would indeed allow for these tactics.


However, interaction with an illusion automatically reveals its nature. 

e.g. Major Image "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

The "because things pass through it" element to the description adds ambiguity but the first half of the sentence if very clear in stating that physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion. 

In terms of illusory fog or darkness - would these be revealed as illusions simply because light will pass through them making them fundamentally ineffective as illusions?

Lots of DM rulings involved in sorting it out but I don't think an illusory fog cloud would work for the scenario described by the OP. (At the very least the fog wouldn't properly respond to a creature moving through it - no swirling etc - which would likely reveal it as an illusion assuming a DM allowed it in the first place. So a fight inside an illusory fog cloud would likely result in all involved realizing it was an illusion.

----------


## Keltest

> However, interaction with an illusion automatically reveals its nature. 
> 
> e.g. Major Image "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
> 
> The "because things pass through it" element to the description adds ambiguity but the first half of the sentence if very clear in stating that physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion. 
> 
> In terms of illusory fog or darkness - would these be revealed as illusions simply because light will pass through them making them fundamentally ineffective as illusions?
> 
> Lots of DM rulings involved in sorting it out but I don't think an illusory fog cloud would work for the scenario described by the OP. (At the very least the fog wouldn't properly respond to a creature moving through it - no swirling etc - which would likely reveal it as an illusion assuming a DM allowed it in the first place. So a fight inside an illusory fog cloud would likely result in all involved realizing it was an illusion.


In the interests of not derailing the thread into something that has gotten extremely heated in the past, I'm going to ignore this question, but I dont want you to think I didnt see it. Its just a loaded question.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Because that's the kind of stretched definition of "illusion" being used to say, "well, mundane disguises and hiding things under rugs are illusions!"


I would rather say, that defining the word Illusion to only mean magical illusions is a bit of a cramped interpretation of the word Illusion.

The spell, True Seeing, explicitly allows the recipient to perceive Secret Doors hidden by Magic.  This could easily be construed to mean non active doors created as a result of the Demiplane spell.

Explicitly emphasizing that True Seeing spots magically concealed doors, is in of itself not necessarily confirmation that Truesight does not work on mundane secret doors.

A mundane disguise is categorically an Illusion, just as is a mirage formed in a desert by heat.  A rug is not categorically an illusion.  A rug might be being used to conceal something, but does that mean it counts as an illusion? 

I think that proposition is on shaky ground. The rug itself is not a misleading image.it is a rug, that happens to be over something.

This part of the definition of the word Illusion: 
_perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature_

Does not strike me as applying to the rug, which is in fact just a rug.
It might apply to a trapdoor obscured by the rug, but that is a judgement call.

----------


## Keltest

> I would rather say, that defining the word Illusion to only mean magical illusions is a bit of a cramped interpretation of the word Illusion.
> 
> The spell, True Seeing, explicitly allows the recipient to perceive Secret Doors hidden by Magic.  This could easily be construed to mean non active doors created as a result of the Demiplane spell.
> 
> Explicitly emphasizing that True Seeing spots magically concealed doors, is in of itself not necessarily confirmation that Truesight does not work on mundane secret doors.
> 
> A mundane disguise is categorically an Illusion, just as is a mirage formed in a desert by heat.  A rug is not categorically an illusion.  A rug might be being used to conceal something, but does that mean it counts as an illusion? 
> 
> I think that proposition is on shaky ground. The rug itself is not a misleading image.it is a rug, that happens to be over something.
> ...


Relying on the dictionary definition is going to be shaky ground because its written in a world where the only illusions are the stage illusion kind.

----------


## da newt

BTW - the fog was real not an illusion, and while I appreciate the cleverness of a wide definition of 'illusion' to support an argument that being able to see through illusions allows a truesight wielding creature to see through disguises and lies and anything false or hidden, I'm confident the RAI only refers to seeing through magical illusions (like disguise self, minor/major illusion, etc).

----------


## Keravath

> BTW - the fog was real not an illusion, and while I appreciate the cleverness of a wide definition of 'illusion' to support an argument that being able to see through illusions allows a truesight wielding creature to see through disguises and lies and anything false or hidden, I'm confident the RAI only refers to seeing through magical illusions (like disguise self, minor/major illusion, etc).


Out of curiosity, would you be able to share which module?

----------


## Keravath

> In the interests of not derailing the thread into something that has gotten extremely heated in the past, I'm going to ignore this question, but I dont want you to think I didnt see it. Its just a loaded question.


No worries :). Thanks for replying. 

Illusions are always a highly debated topic since what they can and can not achieve is almost entirely up to the DM. They are very subjective and RAW doesn't provide much (if anything at all) in the way of guidance, especially in terms of how illusions interact with the environment or even whether illusions are literal creations that affect the senses or figurative creations that affect the mind - each of which results in completely different and frequently arguable situations. So, I agree :) ... let's not derail the thread with a discussion that really has no answer.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Relying on the dictionary definition is going to be shaky ground because its written in a world where the only illusions are the stage illusion kind.


Hologram Tupac at this point might have played more concerts than living Tupac.  Virtual Reality systems are commercially available, and even years old smartphones can run programs with augmented reality (such as Pokémon).

I simply think it is incorrect to assert that we live in a world that only has stage illusions.  The real world has a plethora of illusions.

More importantly though, D&D is a construct.  The players, and the actual game itself, takes place in our real world, which means of course that players imagination are also informed by our real world understanding of the language.

If 5e had an Illusion Keyword, that narrowly defined the word Illusion, (such as one might see on a contract such as a car insurance policy), then the argument you are making Keltest, would have merit.

Just read plainly, the word Illusions encompasses all Illusions, magical or otherwise.  Truesight and the game still function fine, using this plain reading of the word Illusion.

Even the conclusion objection you raised earlier, is functionally addressed as Truesight only allows the viewer to succeed on Saving Throws involving Illusions, not Ability Checks.  

There is no systemic breakdown, and more importantly one does not have to explain as a DM why one is magically adding the word Magical in front of Illusions in the Truesight text.

_Trust me, you cant see itbut the designers meant Magical illusions.they just didnt say itbut I know this is true because I am the DM and have game Truesight_ 
..this strikes me as a shaky foundationlike basing a government off _Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government_.🃏

----------


## Segev

The "trust me, you can't see it, but the designers actually meant anything that might fool the beliefs of a person who sees it when they said 'visual illusion,'" is what seems shakey to me.

Illusions are a specific thing in D&D. There's a whole school of magic about them. 

If you're secretly a vampire, truesight will only tell me something is up if you're magically disguised or transformed. If you just have your mouth covered by a medical mask so I can't see your fangs and I assume you're a living humanoid, truesight won't give me X-ray vision to see your fangs nor magically show me an icon that indicates you're a vampire.

If you've bleached your hair, I don't automatically know it, nor what color it originally was.

If truesight worked on all visual deceptions and obstructions, there would be no need to specify that it reveals doors hidden by magic. In fact, that would be a pointlessly limited thing to say, since it would reveal all hidden doors regardless of how they are hidden.

Truesight won't tell you that the boy being presented as the king's heir is not his son, but actually the son of a castle guard who bears a striking resemblance to the king's son. It shows you a boy in the clothes he is wearing, which are presumably the richly-appointed garb one expects a crown prince to wear.

Truesight won't tell you the blood smeared on the hands of the courtier is actually pig's blood and that the real culprit framed her. You need other examination techniques to determine the nature of the blood. 

Unless truesight, to you, allows instant and perfect identification of all things you see, such that you can never make a mistake of one plant for another, of one mushroom for another, on one ant for another, and gain better knowledge of Nature, Alchemy, Arcana, and everything else than those with expertise in the skills, even if you're untrained, then it must not work on every visual deception.

----------


## stoutstien

All this is exactly why I removed truesight from my game.

----------


## da newt

The module is: Old Bones and Older Tomes DDAL07-13

----------


## tiornys

Potentially relevant, in 3.5 True Seeing explicitly did not help the viewer see through mundane disguises.  Here's the full spell description from the SRD (note that whereas 5e defines "Truesight" and then has the True Seeing spell grant Truesight, 3.5 had a True Seeing spell and granted many creatures a permanent True Seeing ability as per the spell):



> 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.


The first half of the description that tells you what True Seeing enables is very similar to the description of Truesight in 5e.  5e's description ends with telling you what Truesight can do, whereas 3.5's description goes on to list various limitations, which seems in line with the different philosophies behind rule writing for each edition.  While it can be dangerous to apply 3.5 precedent to 5e rules, this does establish a history of D&D using the term "illusions" to refer to magical illusions and explicitly not practical ones.

----------


## Psyren

> Again, this is completely separate from the issue of truesight.


I never said it had anything to do with truesight. Internet discussions evolve.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> If you're secretly a vampire, truesight will only tell me something is up if you're magically disguised or transformed. If you just have your mouth covered by a medical mask so I can't see your fangs and I assume you're a living humanoid, truesight won't give me X-ray vision to see your fangs nor magically show me an icon that indicates you're a vampire.
> 
> If you've bleached your hair, I don't automatically know it, nor what color it originally was.
> 
> If truesight worked on all visual deceptions and obstructions, there would be no need to specify that it reveals doors hidden by magic. In fact, that would be a pointlessly limited thing to say, since it would reveal all hidden doors regardless of how they are hidden.
> 
> Truesight won't tell you that the boy being presented as the king's heir is not his son, but actually the son of a castle guard who bears a striking resemblance to the king's son. It shows you a boy in the clothes he is wearing, which are presumably the richly-appointed garb one expects a crown prince to wear.
> 
> Truesight won't tell you the blood smeared on the hands of the courtier is actually pig's blood and that the real culprit framed her. You need other examination techniques to determine the nature of the blood. 
> ...


Holy Hyperbole Batman!   
Whom is claiming all these things?!

Truesight automatically detects illusions.  Sherlock Holmes in disguise, does not automatically register as Sherlock Holmes, the creature with Truesight just knows, automatically, that a disguise is involved.

I would probably allow Truesight to identify parts of the disguise such as a fake leg and a false nose, but the rest comes down to ability checks.

One point of clarificationTruesight itself states nothing about detecting secret doors concealed by Magicthat is a feature of the True Seeing spell.

----------


## Greywander

Maybe we should reel things back in and refocus this thread?

Does truesight see through...
Magical illusions?  Yes.Supernatural but nonmagical illusions (similar to how dragon's breath or a basilisk's gaze aren't magical)?  Yes.Mundane but technologically advanced illusions (e.g. holograms)?  Probably.Optical illusions (e.g. mirages)?  Unclear.Stage magic that is sometimes referred to as illusions, but is none of the above?  No.Mundane disguises?  No.
D&D doesn't really define what an illusion is, which is part of the problem.  But if we look at existing illusions one of the common threads is that it involves things that aren't actually there.  So I can make an image of a thing with Silent Image, but there isn't actually anything there.  This isn't like a disguise where there _is_ something real there but it's made to look like something else.  Some powerful illusions are able to manifest in a way were they behave as if they were real, e.g. illusory swords that cut people or illusory walls that can't be walked through, but even in those cases there isn't any _real_ thing there.

In the case of optical illusions or holograms it's kind of tough, because the phenomena itself is based on real physics so the inclination is to treat it as "real", and thus not an illusion.  I'm not sure this would be true in a world that already runs on magical physics; real world physics doesn't always apply to fantasy worlds, and though a lot of the end results can look similar sometimes the causes are very different.  Then there's the question of how far to take it.  If optical illusions are fair game, then what about mirrors and reflections?  Or TV/computer displays?

----------


## Segev

It isn't hyperbole to follow the logic as far as it will go. If you believe there is a point at which the logic no longer applies, you can point it out by demonstrating the argument for why truesight should automatically pierce mundane disguises does not apply to the examples you consider hyperbolic. You have not done so, but merely instead said "it won't go that far!"

Why would it tell me that under the _disguise self_ spell creating the illusion of Sherlock Holmes is actually the diabolical Dr. Moriarty, but only tell me there is a disguise being worn if the apparent "Sherlock Holmes" is wearing a mundane Sherlock Holmes disguise? Nothing in the argument that it sees through illusions, and mundane disguises are illusions, suggests that it would fail to show me Dr. Moriarty equally well, regardless of whether the disguise is magical or not.

My position is that it does not penetrate mundane disguises, becauSe they are not "illusions" in the context the spell was written. I have a logical distinction. The "no, anything that deceives the eye or conceals the truth from visual detection is an illusion" argument has no logical reason why it wouldn't grant X-ray vision through any concealment or disguise, mundane or magical.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

The text of Truesight does not say that one automatically sees through Illusions. The text states one Automatically Detects and Succeeds on Saving Throws against the Illusion.

For image type spells, this sort of resolution is simple, one basically does see through the illusion.  (Even then, by RAW,  a creature with Truesight might be required to use their Action, Investigating the image). 

For the semifreddo Illusion spells that are quasi-real, (Simulacrum and Illusory Dragon), applying Truesight is more complicated.

Truesight would seem to be very effective at blunting Illusory Dragonperiod.

It certainly seems appropriate for Truesight to be able discern that a Simulacra is actually Frosty the Snowman, but as written it would also seem to allow for automatic success against saving throws engendered by the simulacra.

Even within the class of magical effects, applying Truesight is not simple.

If we use the classic Reasonable Person test, I contend most reasonable people would agree a mirage is an Illusion.  I would also contend that prosthetic  noses and the like fall under the category of what a hypothetical reasonable person would generally term as illusioncraft.

Greywanders Realness Test, is a good place to start, (though again is complicated by the existence of the semifreddo Illusion spells).  A blanket draped over a painting is not an illusion that Truesight sees throughit is cover.

----------


## Psyren

This largely seems academic. Are there nonmagical/technological holograms and 'optical illusions' in D&D? If so, where? And if not, it would seem that magic is the primary if not only way to create such effects, and therefore truesight should defeat them. This is not to say those first two can't exist, but if they rely on homebrew to exist, then homebrew is the solution.

----------


## Agthor

Will a creature with illusions of grandeur, getting true sight suddenly become humble?

----------


## stoutstien

> This largely seems academic. Are there nonmagical/technological holograms and 'optical illusions' in D&D? If so, where? And if not, it would seem that magic is the primary if not only way to create such effects, and therefore truesight should defeat them. This is not to say those first two can't exist, but if they rely on homebrew to exist, then homebrew is the solution.


I means if mirrors are a possibility within a setting then the number of illusions are almost endless. Peppers ghost is super simple for example.

----------


## Damon_Tor

> This largely seems academic. Are there nonmagical/technological holograms and 'optical illusions' in D&D? If so, where? And if not, it would seem that magic is the primary if not only way to create such effects, and therefore truesight should defeat them. This is not to say those first two can't exist, but if they rely on homebrew to exist, then homebrew is the solution.


The disguise kit comes to mind.

----------


## Chronos

How about this?  There are a number of people who, for as long as I've known them, have always dyed their hair.  If one of them stopped dying their hair, and then a year or two later I saw them again with their natural hair color, I might not recognize them.  If, on seeing such a person with their natural hair color, I cast True Seeing, would I be able to recognize them?  Even if the person deliberately reverted to their natural hair color specifically to fool me?  Can a person's natural appearance be a "disguise"?

----------

