| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people so desperately and passionately want to protect this tactic? Its not like it adds a bunch of flavr to the game and t becoming much harder goes a long way in helping make things make more sense in the world in many, many areas.
Don't assume.
|
If teleportation needed the location the way your claiming, then it would never function. The location is always moving.
A few other things which would not work if that logic were valid;
- GPS directions
- Written turn by turn directions
- Human memories of locations
- Maps
Basically, the requirement is for a relative location on the planet... not an absolute location within the universe at any given moment. If you can point to the location on a map and know what the actual area looks like then you can teleport there (within the other limits of the spell). The fact that the world is spinning and orbiting a star which is itself moving through space is just as irrelevant for teleportation as it is for most other means of travel.
You want cheese, I got cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people so desperately and passionately want to protect this tactic? Its not like it adds a bunch of flavr to the game and t becoming much harder goes a long way in helping make things make more sense in the world in many, many areas.
It allows characters to rescue people being held for sacrifice.
My theory that magical vision is different than normal vision explains scrying to teleport, mirror image in a 5 by 5 square, color spray working in darkness, and glitterdust working in darkness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people so desperately and passionately want to protect this tactic? Its not like it adds a bunch of flavr to the game and t becoming much harder goes a long way in helping make things make more sense in the world in many, many areas.
Probably because it doesn't make any sense within the internal logic of the book.
Desperate? Passionate? You assume much. I just have free time with no better way to spend it talking about a tactic that I don't even use. I blame my campaigns progressing slowly.
My gut instinct tells me that it over complicates a simple idea. Teleport references Scrying as a viable means of finding your target and Ultimate Intrigue introduces a number of stipulations that hadn't been printed before. It's not really clarification when it's adding mechanics.
Where do you read that a target must move in order to gain the "Clear Idea of the Layout" in the Scrying spell? That was new rules text. If my target is in a 2x2 room do I still need them to move around?
Stuffing a person in a 2 foot by 2 foot closet with no room for a light source foils the scrying attempt entirely.
Stuffing a person in a 2 foot by 2 foot closet with no room for a light source foils the scrying attempt entirely.
Make it a 5x5 foot room, the point is the same.
In any event something such as 50% of the room must be seen would have been a better "clarification". Personally, I would still prefer an errata since this is not the ruling from 3.5.
Yeah, I know PF is not 3.5, but nobody can read minds, and if they use the same words people will think the meaning is the same, so Paizo should have clarified what rules they intended to change.
They did do 3.5 work, even wrote some 3.5 books, so it's not like they didn't have the knowledge. That is why some see this as "stealth errata" vs a clarification.
PS: No, I am not saying you mentioned stealth errata or clarifications.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scry-and-fry threads are like the "can splash weapons hurt swarms?" threads, except the more tortured and convoluted reading is the one that's popular for some reason.
You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works.
Familiarity: “Very familiar” is a place where you have been very often and where you feel at home. “Studied carefully” is a place you know well, either because you can currently physically see it or you've been there often. “Seen casually” is a place that you have seen more than once but with which you are not very familiar. “Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.
There are not two components. There's the first quote, which explains the first component in brief ("the clearer your mental image, the more likely..."), and then there's the precise explanation of exactly how close it needs to be.
It being two components would make absolutely no sense. It states that a single viewing by scrying is sufficient. If the former quote was a separate component, how would that work? I scry, then get a mathematical explanation of the exact distance from a cartographer? It's one component explained twice. Redundancy is the biggest source of pedantic RAW debates I've yet found.
If you want the rule to change because you don't like the tactic, fine. I think people are overreacting. It's just another facet to a playing field that mages rule no matter what, and offers PCs the rare opportunity to really take the initiative and buck the rails. I have a feeling one too many GMs in this thread has had a meticulously-planned adventure screwed up by scry-and-fry.
Frankly, there are better ways to address scry-and-fry than saying it's illegal. Block teleporting into the area. Create a spell like teleport trap. Do something unique to the villain. It's really quite simple and much more interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only time I have seen the tactic used is in Paizo-published adventures.
I've seen it used a couple times in campaign journals, and once in a webcomic (:P). It's generally been interesting and exciting—like the time the party teleported in to kill an enemy cambion only to find out that her pit fiend boss was there meeting with her, warded from scrying effects. Laughs were had.
It kind of goes to prove what I just said, too: The improv rule of "never say no" holds true for this. It's more interesting to work around scry-and-fry than to just shut it down for being too challenging to deal with.
Stuffing a person in a 2 foot by 2 foot closet with no room for a light source foils the scrying attempt entirely.
Not if the caster has darkvision! Onwards, I say!
*Entire party teleports into the closet with the target*
*The next morning, the person who stuffed the target in the closet goes to open it; a party of suffocated adventurers bursts out*
Stuffing a person in a 2 foot by 2 foot closet with no room for a light source foils the scrying attempt entirely.Not if the caster has darkvision! Onwards, I say!
*Entire party teleports into the closet with the target*
*The next morning, the person who stuffed the target in the closet goes to open it; a party of suffocated adventurers bursts out*
Go to the Opera.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Marx+brothers+Night+at+the+Opera+Door&a mp;view=detail&mid=B24E58B083E6BFC16BE0B24E58B083E6BFC16BE0&FORM=VI RE
Just the thing for your horror comedy dungeon. Sanity loss 1D4 if you fail a DC18 will save.
|
|
If you can point to the location on a map and know what the actual area looks like then you can teleport there (within the other limits of the spell).Are you saying that people can't teleport to a known location if they don't currently know their own location?
No.
Are you saying that water causes cancer?
|
|
Yeah, fair enough. That's four hundred posts debating a topic that's already been debated in other threads and that reads identically to every single other RAW thread. F#&% that. :P
Also, comments stating things like, "Why are you guys defending this tactic?" are what have given me the impression that the tactic itself is under attack.
It's still not how the rules are written, and I don't really see any point in lobbying Paizo for restrictions. Who cares what the RAW is? The PFS Defense doesn't hold up here—scry-and-fry is not a PFS-friendly tactic anyways. So just house rule it as you like.
It it not RAW only if people take this phrase "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." take away a piece and decide that instead it say "You must have some clear idea of the layout of the destination."
Having been in the armed services, I would say that a "clear idea" of a location is one I can program into a computer and send a tomahawk missle to.
"A bedroom" is insufficient information as is "the bedroom I'm looking at right now"...as well as "the 10' of area around Quintain".
The S&Fers think that just by scrying and through scrying alone somehow entitles them to the 25% chance.
All of them have yet to be able to describe the location of my basement as something other than "where my live video feed comes from".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The S&Fers think that just by scrying and through scrying alone somehow entitles them to the 25% chance.
I think that, because that's what it says and how it has been written and used in Paizo adventures. Also, it's a 75% chance according to the table under 'viewed once'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are blindfolded, lead into a chamber miles away and then asked to teleport to the otherside of the room... could you?
You 'don't know your location' as per the definition many have been using here. But, you've seen it. You're actually there.
Yes, you can teleport there as 'studied carefully'. See? The location is not what many here seem to believe it is. You don't need to know the GPS coordinates, or know what the surrounding area is. Or even what kingdom it is in. You just need to know that the location exists(know the location), have viewed it somewhow, and then you can teleport there.
What you need is a definition of 'knowing the location' that aligns with scrying being able to give you that. As scrying, by RAW, definitely gives you the ability to teleport to a location.
Also the way layout is being used is wonky. You don't need to know you're teleporting to the third floor of some building. That is a layout of a building. You need to know where the chairs and desks and lamps etc are in the place you are teleporting too. That is a layout of a location. It is completely possible to have no idea how to get out of a room you teleport in to.
Also if scrying gives you all that you need to teleport, as a viewed once, then if you scry the place mutltiple times you should even be able to get 'seen casually'.
You don't have to like this. But it is in the game.
You can change it if you like, but you can not deny that the game says scrying gives you everything you need to teleport to a place. And that seeing a place gives you its location regardless of you knowing where you are.
Not as difficult as following a person posting as two different aliases within a few minutes in the same thread. Just odd.
Lorewalker. How does Scrying tell you where a place is located? Can you explain how that is.
If you take the phrase "know the location and layout" to simply mean know what the place looks like - then your interpretation could be valid. However in which case using both location and layout in the sentence is redundant.
If however you believe 'layout' to be be what a place looks like and 'location' to be where a place is, as I and several others do - the developers for instance - then the clarification in ultimate intrigue merely confirms what the rules have said all along.
Anyway the battle lines seem fairly entrenched on the subject and there seems little point arguing about what words mean. That always ends badly!
Doesn't a scrying sensor count as a sensory organ of the scryer i.e part of you is technically at that location and looking at the place you want to go?
If you are blindfolded, lead into a chamber miles away and then asked to teleport to the otherside of the room... could you?
You 'don't know your location' as per the definition many have been using here. But, you've seen it. You're actually there.
No, you couldn't. If you have no idea where you were, you do not have a clear idea of the destination. It's really that simple. The clear idea of the destination is tested well before the layout tests (studied carfully, etc) are even checked.
Having a clear idea of the destination is a wholly separate check on whether the teleport is even possible or not. The "studied carefully" is testing the layout of the destination.
Doesn't a scrying sensor count as a sensory organ of the scryer i.e part of you is technically at that location and looking at the place you want to go?
Yes, that is true, however, if you have no idea where you are, you can't get back there, by teleport or otherwise.
You *have* to know where the sensor is located in some objective fashion before even being able to consider being able to teleport there.