Talk:Magic:True Seeing: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Wait a sec. The current spell description looks incorrect. The Avlis implementation of True Seeing does not allow the caster to automatically see hidden characters (thank god), but instead gives them a +2/caster level bonus to their spot check, with a minimum of +30, and a maximum of +50. Unless this has been changed, this is how the spell functions (and if it has changed, all us sneaks would really like to know). -- [[User:Aeveras|Aeveras]] 16:26, 11 January 2007 (PST) | Wait a sec. The current spell description looks incorrect. The Avlis implementation of True Seeing does not allow the caster to automatically see hidden characters (thank god), but instead gives them a +2/caster level bonus to their spot check, with a minimum of +30, and a maximum of +50. Unless this has been changed, this is how the spell functions (and if it has changed, all us sneaks would really like to know). -- [[User:Aeveras|Aeveras]] 16:26, 11 January 2007 (PST) | ||
----- | |||
No need to worry. The original description with modification was accidentally used rather than the current one. | No need to worry. The original description with modification was accidentally used rather than the current one. | ||
It has been corrected. | It has been corrected. -- [[User:PsiOmega|PsiOmega]] 03:03, 12 January 2007 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:03, 12 January 2007
A personal favorite. Using Extend, I always have this one running. The only creatures you won't see are particularly talented rogues. Still, 99% of Avlis is visible to you. The Ultravision is a nice touch.
Wait a sec. The current spell description looks incorrect. The Avlis implementation of True Seeing does not allow the caster to automatically see hidden characters (thank god), but instead gives them a +2/caster level bonus to their spot check, with a minimum of +30, and a maximum of +50. Unless this has been changed, this is how the spell functions (and if it has changed, all us sneaks would really like to know). -- Aeveras 16:26, 11 January 2007 (PST)
No need to worry. The original description with modification was accidentally used rather than the current one.
It has been corrected. -- PsiOmega 03:03, 12 January 2007 (GMT)