| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the CRB doesn't say that casting the spell overrides needing to have a clear idea of the location as well.
Therein lies the problem. It's hard to come to an agreement on the proper interpretation of the rules when something that *isn't* said is so significant.
There is also the problem is when the style of play is not agreed upon and when that happens, an "official interpretation" is requested from a neutral party (aka game designers).
"Play it your way" isn't a helpful answer.
Does UI further clarify what constitutes the layout of an area? Is "picture here, bed there and window on the side" enough? I'm afraid the snippet alone is merely enough to make things harder to rule rather than easier.
No, it doesn't go into that level of detail. But, I view the layout is the objects of a particular area that complicate the knowledge required to successfully teleport (remember that changing the layout increases the chance for error).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the CRB doesn't say that casting the spell overrides needing to have a clear idea of the location as well.
Therein lies the problem. It's hard to come to an agreement on the proper interpretation of the rules when something that *isn't* said is so significant.
There is also the problem is when the style of play is not agreed upon and when that happens, an "official interpretation" is requested from a neutral party (aka game designers).
"Play it your way" isn't a helpful answer.
The spell says you need to have a clear idea of the location. It doesn't say that scrying removes that requirement. UI reinforces the fact that scrying does not remove the requirement. I agree it wasn't clear before, but now we've made ourselves clear. The part about running it the other way was for groups that prefer scry and fry; I think it's important for us to give you our explanation, but then it's still important that each group considers what we say and runs it the way that works best for that group, whatever that might be. Particularly in an intrigue game, though, I highly recommend running it the way we've clarified.
Oh, Agreed, even in "normal" non-intrigue games where the NPCs can use those same tactics against the PCs -- the PCs need to know what to expect so that they can mold their preparations accordingly.
I don't think you have clarified what it means to "have a clear idea of the location" at all. Could you give some examples of cases that would and wouldn't give enough info, so we have a baseline to judge from.
For instance, I could say I have a really clear idea of the location that is the 8 5-foot squares surrounding the target of scrying.
I don't think you have clarified what it means to "have a clear idea of the location" at all. Could you give some examples of cases that would and wouldn't give enough info, so we have a baseline to judge from.
For instance, I could say I have a really clear idea of the location that is the 8 5-foot squares surrounding the target of scrying.
You could say that, but then I would ask. "Ok, tell me where those squares are".
A good test would be that you need to be able to describe the creatures location in a manner that allows a 3rd party to understand where the creature is, uniquely.
Those 8 squares surrounding the creature isn't enough, unless you can say that those 8 squares are in the throne room of President Snow's presidential palace of the capital city of Panem.
They could be 8 squares anywhere, really. I'd say that if you want to teleport based on that, I could put you in any 8 similar squares anywhere on the planet.
See the difference?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell says that you need a clear idea, and gives a guideline for how clear of an idea you have, explicitly citing scrying as a method and without any other language hinting otherwise. Saying that you can't teleport with the information given by a scry spell is not a change, but a 'clarification', comes off as disingenuous. A less favorable interpretation would view it as condescending, implying that those who have run it as written have either failed at reading comprehension or are rules-lawyering munchkins.
Is "we feel that what is known colloquially as 'scry and fry' is not a favorable outcome, and advise the following change" somehow not an option? Even just calling it errata would be acceptable.
|
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.From the "Succeeding on a Saving Throw" section here.Right. Exactly. "I am a BBEG, and I feel a hostile force or tingle."
My BBEGs take this as a precursor to an attack, and start their buffing and prep.
They're a paranoid lot, my BBEGs.
After a couple of hours and after most of the buff have been exhausted the PC attack.
My BEEGs prefer the lead sheathed walls and enough guards to get a warning.There is a thriving industry in producing lead sheets in most gaming worlds, I suppose.
I don't think you have clarified what it means to "have a clear idea of the location" at all. Could you give some examples of cases that would and wouldn't give enough info, so we have a baseline to judge from.
For instance, I could say I have a really clear idea of the location that is the 8 5-foot squares surrounding the target of scrying.
You could say that, but then I would ask. "Ok, tell me where those squares are".
A good test would be that you need to be able to describe the creatures location in a manner that allows a 3rd party to understand where the creature is, uniquely.
Those 8 squares surrounding the creature isn't enough, unless you can say that those 8 squares are in the throne room of President Snow's presidential palace of the capital city of Panem.
They could be 8 squares anywhere, really. I'd say that if you want to teleport based on that, I could put you in any 8 similar squares anywhere on the planet.
See the difference?
Another "common" tactic for important personages of my gaming world is to have several identical public rooms in several locations.
So scrying Czar Ivan in his throne room can be "Czar Ivan in the throne room of the Winter Palace of Moscow or in the summer Residence of Petrograd." Pick the wrong one and you will find a lot of guards and no Czar.
Actually the state regalia of the most important rulers grant mind blank, protection from good/evil/law/chaos and even protection from neutrals (even if it don't exist).
The spell says that you need a clear idea, and gives a guideline for how clear of an idea you have, explicitly citing scrying as a method and without any other language hinting otherwise. Saying that you can't teleport with the information given by a scry spell is not a change, but a 'clarification', comes off as disingenuous.
The spell states that you need to know the location of the target. Scrying is a possible way of learning someone's location, but does not guarantee it. That is what RAW has always said, but it was phrased unclearly in a way that apparently led many players, GMs, and adventure writers to assume that Scrying was a reliable method. Thankfully, it has now been clarified.
I would say that a simple hyperlink shouldn't infer any sort of meaning to the word.No, that's exactly what a hyperlink does. Otherwise, why would the hyperlink link to a spell that has nothing to do with the text? It could have just as easily have hyperlinked to the scrying section of the magic page like so, <Scrying>.
Scrying (the activity) *can* get you the right information in order to teleport.But as shown above, Scrying isn't what you are linked to in the teleport spell.
Scrying (the spell) does not give sufficient information to provide both layout and location (gives 10' of layout, not location).According the spell Teleport, it somehow does.
Now, if you want to argue that inclusion of the hyperlink was a mistake, then you may be right. But, it remains an official source, until clarified.
I'vs seen inaccurate hyperlinks before. While I do think that the teleport spell calling out scrying supports that scry and fry works, and I find the hyperlinks useful, I don't think a hyperlink by itself means something is right or wrong.
I am going to re-ask a question I asked a long time ago to those doubting the legality of fry and scry with regard to scrying not providing enough info on its own.
Since scrying is mentioned in the teleport spell could you tell use of scrying would allow you to teleport to a place?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Twilight Sparkle:"I just felt a tingle! Someone is trying to scry on me! Do you think they are planning an attack?"
Rarity:"Daaahling, guys are always scrying on me.It means you're popular."
Fluttershy:"They're looking at me? How do I make it stop!"
Magic such as scrying is a superset that includes all things that it applies to. Thus it means the spell scry, crystal ball use, monsters that can scry so many times a day, probably all clairvoyance, and some other forms of magical remote viewing.
If you challenge scrying to teleport on the basis of a limited view, you go down a very nasty rabbit hole. Can you identify the floor? Is it wood, stone, marble? Can you identify the type of wood, stone, or marble? What about the furniture? Is that the kind of furniture you have seen in a specific inn or home? Does the wood have a grain? If not, it probably is an illusion of some sort. Does the person get up and walk around? If not, does that mean you cannot teleport there at all? If they go to a window, you see the window frame, not the countryside beyond. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! Make it stop!
You could say that, but then I would ask. "Ok, tell me where those squares are".
The obvious answer is that "Those are the squares surrounding the target of my scrying", which would indeed be a unique place in the universe.
Those 8 squares surrounding the creature isn't enough, unless you can say that those 8 squares are in the throne room of President Snow's presidential palace of the capital city of Panem.They could be 8 squares anywhere, really. I'd say that if you want to teleport based on that, I could put you in any 8 similar squares anywhere on the planet.
That could be a fine houserule, but is it actually stated anywhere in the text?
Yeah errors are not uncommon in PRD hyperlinks. I think they automate it, which saves a lot of work but means certain words are recognized and incorrectly hyperlinked.
Of course, in this case we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the link is indeed correct, as other spells use similar language and the word scrying is in italics.
|
|
I am going to re-ask a question I asked a long time ago to those doubting the legality of fry and scry with regard to scrying not providing enough info on its own.
Since scrying is mentioned in the teleport spell could you tell use of scrying would allow you to teleport to a place?
1) The spell Scrying target people, so it is not a way to scry a place.
Using Scrying on people you can get clues about their location and, if you get the location, have an idea of where it is and see the layout of the destination you can teleport there.2) The scrying subschool of the divination school includes Clairvoyance that is a spell to scry a place, an obvious one but not necessarily one whose layout you know, so it can be used to allow teleportation to a location that you have never visited.
3) There where and probably still are spells that allow you to see through the eyes of an animal or the location around a specific object, magic items that do the same, the ability to scry on your own familiar, with the familiar reporting on its position.
There are plenty of ways in which the scrying spell of the act of scrying someone/something can give you enough information to allow telportation. Simply it isn't automatic.
You could say that, but then I would ask. "Ok, tell me where those squares are".The obvious answer is that "Those are the squares surrounding the target of my scrying", which would indeed be a unique place in the universe.
That could be a fine houserule, but is it actually stated anywhere in the text?
Those 8 squares surrounding the creature isn't enough, unless you can say that those 8 squares are in the throne room of President Snow's presidential palace of the capital city of Panem.They could be 8 squares anywhere, really. I'd say that if you want to teleport based on that, I could put you in any 8 similar squares anywhere on the planet.
But not one whose location can be described outside of the scrying...or is known objectively. So, you get sent elsewhere. Congrats.
And yes, it is stated in the text..."thematically similar".
Doesn't "thematically similar" just imply this works? If I'm targeting the location surrounding the target of my scrying with teleport, I have a small chance of going somewhere thematically similar to that. This could be the location around some similar guy. So, if I roll poorly, maybe I teleport to the big bad's brother instead of the big bad.
If only we had a new resource that discussed and clarified concepts like this that cause so much confusion....
Support the creation of that resource - click here and show your support!
I don't think you have clarified what it means to "have a clear idea of the location" at all. Could you give some examples of cases that would and wouldn't give enough info, so we have a baseline to judge from.
For instance, I could say I have a really clear idea of the location that is the 8 5-foot squares surrounding the target of scrying.
To my mind, this kind of thing is best left up to the particular group's take on it. But for PFS I suppose it would be nice to have a document that looks a little deeper, for sake of table consistency. But then again, the way PFS scenario's are written, the scenario would probably spell out how the author intended it to be run I'm guessing?
I am going to re-ask a question I asked a long time ago to those doubting the legality of fry and scry with regard to scrying not providing enough info on its own.
Since scrying is mentioned in the teleport spell could you tell use of scrying would allow you to teleport to a place?
1) The spell Scrying target people, so it is not a way to scry a place.
Using Scrying on people you can get clues about their location and, if you get the location, have an idea of where it is and see the layout of the destination you can teleport there.2) The scrying subschool of the divination school includes Clairvoyance that is a spell to scry a place, an obvious one but not necessarily one whose layout you know, so it can be used to allow teleportation to a location that you have never visited.
3) There where and probably still are spells that allow you to see through the eyes of an animal or the location around a specific object, magic items that do the same, the ability to scry on your own familiar, with the familiar reporting on its position.
There are plenty of ways in which the scrying spell of the act of scrying someone/something can give you enough information to allow telportation. Simply it isn't automatic.
That makes would sense, however the spelling of "scrying" in the teleport spell is in italics and that means it is talking about the spell, not the subschool. This is consistent throughout the prd and the CRB.
As an example look at the True Seeing spell and notice how Blur and Displacement are in italics, but when it references the invisible condition that is not in italics.
There are other examples(spells) that do this also. Another example is the Protection From Evil spell. It italicizes specific spells, but when it calls out schools and subschools they are not italicized.
This(italics for spells) is also done in the magic chapter.
If you are taking continuous damage, such as from an acid arrow or by standing in a lake of lava...
So with that in mind how does the scrying spell work to give the location when it is going to work?
Yes. If you look at the opening post it even says answered in the errata.what errata, where?
This is why the FAQ flag answers really need to be more user-friendly. We shouldn't have to ask things like this.
This is why the FAQ flag answers really need to be more user-friendly. We shouldn't have to ask things like this.Yes. If you look at the opening post it even says answered in the errata.what errata, where?
A few of them got this treatment before the "no reply required" thing was invented. However the FAQ would never really have an answer. The best thing to do is to start a new thread asking the same question. I might do it this weekend. Paizo might decide it doesn't want the spell to work like the 3.5 combo, and just errata it, but I think that is better than no answer at all.
Scry-Teleport-Kill are the rules of the game. The Teleport spell explicitly allows it. It worked in 3.5, and none of the tools involved have changed to make it unworkable. Rob McCreary confirmed it as legal, in print, as recently as 2012 (Skulls & Shackles players guide).
Paizo has a very firm policy about never altering anything in the core rules or admitting that parts of them might have problems. They make adjustments to the core by means of "clarifications"; remember when armed Flurry of Blows had suddenly always required two weapons? It's irksome if you're an integrity-first guy, but when the policy was instituted, it was good business sense, and it's good business sense to not rock the boat now.
That puts by-the-book GMs in the bind between clear-as-day rules in the Teleport spell and an official "clarification" that says the opposite. What GMs needed was a sidebar saying "We STRONGLY suggest implementing this house rule, from session 1". But, see above.
|
|
Scry-Teleport-Kill are the rules of the game. The Teleport spell explicitly allows it. It worked in 3.5, and none of the tools involved have changed to make it unworkable. Rob McCreary confirmed it as legal, in print, as recently as 2012 (Skulls & Shackles players guide).
I cited that piece two times already in this thread. It don't say that. Read it.
Paizo has a very firm policy about never altering anything in the core rules or admitting that parts of them might have problems. They make adjustments to the core by means of "clarifications"; remember when armed Flurry of Blows had suddenly always required two weapons? It's irksome if you're an integrity-first guy, but when the policy was instituted, it was good business sense, and it's good business sense to not rock the boat now.That puts by-the-book GMs in the bind between clear-as-day rules in the Teleport spell and an official "clarification" that says the opposite. What GMs needed was a sidebar saying "We STRONGLY suggest implementing this house rule, from session 1". But, see above.
A good number of people disagreed with your interpretation of RAW even before the recent developments.
You choose to disregard a piece of the spell text to reach that conclusion. You think it is fluff, other people think that it is a rule.So it isn't a "by the book" GM that has problem, it is a "I choose this possible interpretation GM" that has problems.
I am going to re-ask a question I asked a long time ago to those doubting the legality of fry and scry with regard to scrying not providing enough info on its own.
Since scrying is mentioned in the teleport spell could you tell use of scrying would allow you to teleport to a place?
1) The spell Scrying target people, so it is not a way to scry a place.
Using Scrying on people you can get clues about their location and, if you get the location, have an idea of where it is and see the layout of the destination you can teleport there.2) The scrying subschool of the divination school includes Clairvoyance that is a spell to scry a place, an obvious one but not necessarily one whose layout you know, so it can be used to allow teleportation to a location that you have never visited.
3) There where and probably still are spells that allow you to see through the eyes of an animal or the location around a specific object, magic items that do the same, the ability to scry on your own familiar, with the familiar reporting on its position.
There are plenty of ways in which the scrying spell of the act of scrying someone/something can give you enough information to allow telportation. Simply it isn't automatic.
That makes would sense, however the spelling of "scrying" in the teleport spell is in italics and that means it is talking about the spell, not the subschool. This is consistent throughout the prd and the CRB.
As an example look at the True Seeing spell and notice how Blur and Displacement are in italics, but when it references the invisible condition that is not in italics.
There are other examples(spells) that do this also. Another example is the Protection From Evil spell. It italicizes specific spells, but when it calls out schools and subschools they are not italicized.
This(italics for spells) is also done in the magic chapter.
If you are taking continuous damage, such as from an...
correction: "That makes would sense.." should that "That would make sense..."
I really wish they would allow timeless edits, or at least extend it to 2 hours.
One of the definitions in the spell is "place you've [only] viewed with [the specific spell named] scrying".
Checking the actual rulebook gives the same result.
Checking the changes from 3.5, where scry-and-fry is indisputable legal, gives the same result.
Checking what the company thought the rules were last time they published something about it gives the same result.
There is no way that "scry-and-fry doesn't work!" is anything but a house rule or rules change. For reasons that nobody is under any contractual or ethical reason to respect, Paizo wants to call it a "clarification". But it isn't, and people should stop playing along with the pretense that it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I like playing along.
Honestly it seems a little unintuitive for Teleport to say scrying and then say "But not really cuz yknow reasons/lawyer reading text."
But hey! If we werent used to complicated rules by now we'd be in a sore spot indeed.
What's the confusion? Scrying will tell you the layout of the place you're teleporting and allow you an idea of what situation you will be teleporting into but won't tell you where the location of that place is. You need both to teleport.
If it's somewhere you recognise or can infer - a cave you've travelled through, somewhere you've had pointed out on a map, a famous location, somewhere you have seen from the outside - you're fine, you can teleport there.
If you want to teleport to a ship you need to scry it first and teleport straight away, because even though you may know the layout and the general location, the ship is moving and you need a better lock. Simple.
Stubbornly maintaining that scry and fry always works despite official clarification to the contrary is very odd. If you don't like it then house rule it. If you are the odd man of your table then suck it up.
Doesn't "thematically similar" just imply this works? If I'm targeting the location surrounding the target of my scrying with teleport, I have a small chance of going somewhere thematically similar to that. This could be the location around some similar guy. So, if I roll poorly, maybe I teleport to the big bad's brother instead of the big bad.
No one is saying you can't teleport. I suppose you can blindly teleport if you can describe your destination. What we are saying is that your success is not assured, even with Greater Teleport.
Scry and Fry presumes an accurate teleport.
If you are worried about getting a location, use the 8th levelDiscern Location spell.
Accurate? I thought we were arguing that scrying gives you the viewed once option, which has a built in 25% chance of failure.
Now if we are talking about Greater Teleport, then that has slightly different text.
It just seems backwards logically...
The book says scrying is enough to get you a "Viewed Once" chance of successful teleport.
If it wasnt able to allow one to teleport off that information, what would be the point of saying that Scrying is capable of granting the "Viewed Once" condition?
The Teleport Spell goes on to say that "the clearer image the caster has, the more likely the teleport works..." which is another way of saying that if the image is unclear the less likely it is for a successful teleport. However it does not say that it is impossible.
...which is why we have the table listing the success rates based on how familiar the caster is with the location.
Going back and saying Scrying isn't capable of allowing one to teleport off that information alone seems inconsistent with the text of the spell as I explained above.
Because there are two components.
1. Knowing what the location looks like (which requires a level of familiarity)
2. Knowing where the location is. Which requires a map/previous experience/good description.
Scrying helps with 1. but not 2.
In many cases 2. Will just be a given, you know where the inn of three feathers is, or where he royal palace is. However if you are just Scrying a closed room with no identifying details then you can't teleport there.
Accurate? I thought we were arguing that scrying gives you the viewed once option, which has a built in 25% chance of failure.
Now if we are talking about Greater Teleport, then that has slightly different text.
If you are assuming a built in chance of failure, why is Scrying even necessary? All teleport requires is a description of the destination.
Scry and Fry, however, assumes success and that your target is at a destination known to you.
Scrying (the spell) does not ensure this <--- this is what is being said.
The book says scrying is enough to get you a "Viewed Once" chance of successful teleport.
Actually, it doesn't. This is what it does say: "Viewed once" is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying. What this does not say is that you automatically know where this location is...this is being wrongly assumed by the Pro-S&F people.
Scrying only gives 1 part of 2 that is needed to get the "viewed once" 25% chance of failure. You still need a known destination on top of that. This part is baked into the statement which says: You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. -- Again, this time with emphasis Scry gives you layout to the area of space around your target, it does not give location. -- there is nothing in the spell description for Scry that alludes to or explicitly states that you get the target's location.
If you have used scry to view a target, but don't know that target's location objectively, you will result in "false destination".
If you know the target's location objectively (but have never been there) and used scry on someone at that location, then, and only then do you get the "viewed once" option.
Note: If you are looking for guidance of what determines "knowing the location", look at what Discern Location provides:
...place, name, business name, building name, or the like), community, county (or similar political division), country, continent, and the plane of existence where the target lies
So, in order of increasing accuracy, you must provide all of these:
Plane of Existence
Continent
Country
County (or other similar political division ("Province")
Community (city/town)
place name, business name, or building name
Scrying only gives 1 part of 2 that is needed to get the "viewed once" 25% chance of failure.
So Scrying doesn't give you the "Viewed Once" condition now?
Its weird that the book says that it does.
It seems to me there is a disconnect between scrying saying it qualifies as a method of gaining the "Viewed Once" thus allowing the 25% chance of failure which is what the table says and those extrapolating from a descriptive sentence that was debunked back in 3.5.
What happened the last time a rules change happened through "clarification?" It was reverted. SLA FAQ anyone?
It does as long as you have a clear idea of the destination. Which you know is the part of the description of the spell you are conveniently ignoring.
But you knew that.
This clarification is actually in print...Ultimate Intrigue. So, in order for this to be retracted, an errata would have to be issued.
It does as long as you have a clear idea of the destination. Which you know is the part of the description of the spell you are conveniently ignoring.
But you knew that.
This clarification is actually in print...Ultimate Intrigue. So, in order for this to be retracted, an errata would have to be issued.
If you see the location you want to teleport to through the spell is that not a clear idea of where you want to be?
No because you have no idea where that location is - only what it looks like.
Think of it like lookomg at something on a security camera. You know exactly what the location looks like but unless there is a sign or name in the image you're still stuck.
It does as long as you have a clear idea of the destination. Which you know is the part of the description of the spell you are conveniently ignoring.
But you knew that.
This clarification is actually in print...Ultimate Intrigue. So, in order for this to be retracted, an errata would have to be issued.
If you see the location you want to teleport to through the spell is that not a clear idea of where you want to be?
If I were to show you pictures stream a live video of me in my basement, would you know where that basement is?
The answer to that question is: No.
Now, if I were on the corner of 10th street and Main with a signpost visible within the visbile area provided by the scry spell, then yeah, it would. But in most cases in Pathfinder, that is exceedingly rare.
And even in the case of a signpost present declaring where this is, you still get a 25% chance of error.. because other cities also have a 10th and Main with the same signpost, if you have never been to that specific intersection in that specific town.
Well unless there are a bunch of other basements that look similar wouldnt it be still possible to get there considering there is a chance of similar place?
I mean thats why that chance is there. For places that are similar with the same grandfather clock on the northern wall.
If I knew exactly where it is AND had knowledge of the area through scrying/other means that doesnt sound like a "Viewed Once" description. That sounds more like "Seen Casually" or "Studied Carefully".
So you need to know where it is relative to what?
To those of you saying it doesn't work I will ask a 3rd time tell me how the mentioning of scying in the teleport spell is supposed to work then?
It is a rule in the book so saying it doesn't work is just like saying "I dont like what the book says".
Also it is referring to the spell, not just a descriptor, which is shown in my last post.
Feel free to check the spells I referenced as examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are *NOT* saying it doesn't work.
What we are saying is that scrying only provides 1 of two needed components in order to get the "viewed once" condition.
The other is knowledge of the location. -- See the Discern Location spell on how to define location.
Mentioning the scrying spell is a method for getting the layout of the area around your target only -- it does NOT provide the location.
If I were to blindfold you an put you in a room, let you look at it for the length of the scry spell's duration, then blindfold you again, and take you somewhere else after putting you to sleep, could you get yourself back to that room? You don't even know for sure if that room is on the same plane of existence, let alone have a 25% chance of finding it at random.
Again, answer is: No.
Well unless there are a bunch of other basements that look similar wouldnt it be still possible to get there considering there is a chance of similar place?
Wraithstrike: I have already described, in detail, how the spell is supposed to work.
In order to get anything other than "false destination" or just a failed spell, you need 2 things. Objective Location, and Layout.
Scrying gives you layout -- a visual of the area. It does not give location -- which is an objective measure of the destination of the teleport. Scrying does not provide this.
Merely using the scrying spell doesn't entitle you to the viewed once.
Read the *entire* spell, not just a single sentence of the spell.
So you need to know where it is relative to what?
See the Discern Location spell..and it is not a "relative" measure, it is an objective one.
As I've already mentioned,
1) Scry-and-Fry has worked, in its current form, since August 1, 2000. (It also worked for 30 years before that, but with the massive changes from AD&D Teleport to 3.0 Teleport, that's not relevant).
2) Nothing [substantial to the question at hand] in either the Scrying or Teleport spell has changed since then.
3) Therefore, the rules do not support the idea that it doesn't.
To those of you saying it doesn't work I will ask a 3rd time tell me how the mentioning of scying in the teleport spell is supposed to work then?
It is a rule in the book so saying it doesn't work is just like saying "I dont like what the book says".
Also it is referring to the spell, not just a descriptor, which is shown in my last post.
Feel free to check the spells I referenced as examples.
Hey Wraith, the basic idea is that teleport has these two conditions that need to be met. Location and Layout. Once those are met, you can attempt, so you look at the table to figure your chance. Scrying gets mentioned there because it is one way you may have gotten some familiarity with the layout of the destination, which will help your odds of a successful teleport... But if you don't know what location you want to go to, you are still out of luck.
Now I am not saying this is how it's supposed to work, but when my group read this over that is what we thought the description meant. So, it is one possible conclusion some might reach when reading these spell descriptions. Keep in mind though, we didn't play 3.x before pathfinder, so we decided this without knowing the legacy.
Anyway, if that interpretation was shown to me to be different than the designer's intended one, I think I would keep my take on it in play as a house rule, because it supports a lot of story possibilities I enjoy.
------
Now as for Paizo making a ruling here, and calling it a clarification rather than errata, I see some folks (not you wraith) seem to feel they are being disingenuous or unethical. I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt here though.
Pathfinder was pretty much a tweaked version of 3.x when it started out right? And I understand there was a pretty short time between beta and 1st printing. It's always possible that in areas where multiple interpretations of the text are possible, the team that designed pathfinder favored one interpretation, and will indicate so when asked for a clarification, even if the text wasn't changed in the conversion from 3,x to PF in a way that spelled out this preference at the time.
When we ask them for a ruling one way or the other on an issue that has more than one possible interpretation, they should still be able to choose the one that they feel is more in line with the vision they had for their version of the game. I don't find that capricious or stealthy, it's kind of just part of their job.
Even if they have changed their mind since core, or just never thought about it til they were asked, they still have to decide what they think is best for the game, and if the text can reasonably be interpreted to support the position they decide to officially take, then I guess it's still fair to call it a clarification.
I don't have a problem with clarifications as a mechanism to make rulings, it seems an appropriate for a project like Ultimate Intrigue that tunnels in and fleshes out an interesting area of the game that never had detailed rule support.
Just some thoughts I have as I read through the thread, not meaning to be confrontational towards anyone or stir the pot, and sorry for rambling.
The basic reason is that theres a segment of players and even some at paizo that DONT want it to work, so they're going to needlessly complicate the straightforward reading of the spells using techniques that are as old as RPG's to cloud the waters in order to feel like they're RAW rather than just houseruling it.
As I've already mentioned,
1) Scry-and-Fry has worked, in its current form, since August 1, 2000. (It also worked for 30 years before that, but with the massive changes from AD&D Teleport to 3.0 Teleport, that's not relevant).
2) Nothing [substantial to the question at hand] in either the Scrying or Teleport spell has changed since then.
3) Therefore, the rules do not support the idea that it doesn't.
See Ring of Invisibility.