| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was wondering whether using arcane eye to explore outer space was fair game. The spell description says: "You can create the arcane eye at any point you can see, but it can then travel outside your line of sight without hindrance." So, look up during a clear night, pick out a visible celestial body you'd like to explore, cast your spell and "create an invisible magical sensor that sends you visual information" at that location. Granted, you wouldn't be able to explore very far on the planet or moon of your choice since "An arcane eye travels at 30 feet per round" but it's certainly much better than using a telescope and easier than casting interplanatary teleport. Traveling Dream further increases the window of exploration by an order of magnitude (to hours rather than minutes) and even opens up the door to communicating with native extraterrestrials.
Thoughts?
Arcane Eye lasts a maximum of 20 mins at 20th level. That means it travels a maximum of 6000 feet from you before it winks out. Which is going to put a major crimp on your astronomical endeavours.
Uhm. The spell description says "You can create the arcane eye at any point you can see", so it doesn't have to first travel the intervening distance between you and your target area. If it did the description would simply say that the arcane eye initially appears next to the caster.
Seems to me that anything within line of sight is a fair starting point, whether it's a castle atop a mountain visible five miles away or the surface of the moon in the sky overhead.
Similar to what Mergy said. You don't really see things in outer space. You see stars, not planets, if you're talking about constellations. Any occlusion effects from planets are minimal to highly tuned telescopes let alone the naked eye. At best, you would land your censor on a star and probably get permanently blinded. :D
Except the Perception rules govern what you see, and the DC to see something with Perception increase by 1 for every 10 feet.An interesting point. But, by that logic, wouldn't a spellcaster need to make a perception check to establish the limits of his line of sight before casting any ranged spell? A spellcaster with no ranks in perception might not be able to aim a fireball 100 feet away in a well lit open area because of a particularly poor roll. Spells with a long range would be all but impossible to aim beyond some 300-400 ft because of the high DC involved in seeing a target that far away due to the penalties to perception checks.
Any occlusion effects from planets are minimal to highly tuned telescopes let alone the naked eye. At best, you would land your censor on a star and probably get permanently blinded.Also a valid point. But say you're aiming for a neighbouring moon or planet rather than a star and aren't terribly concerned with accuracy, might a caster not be able to get his arcane eye sensor to appear close enough to his target to study it? Even being a few hundred or even a thousand miles off would still afford a spellcaster with a great view.
More importantly, you don't have line of sight on the object itself... you have a line of sight on where the object was at some point in the past, when you're looking at outer space size scales.
That's true; though not just of outer space but of anywhere. But some celestial distances aren't that significant. Our moon is only a few light-seconds away while our nearest planetary neighbours are only a few light-minutes further. The distance traveled by such bodies in that amount of time isn't so bad. And, as I mentioned above, if you're aiming for something as big as a planet, "close" may be sufficient for detailed observations. Repeated castings and a little luck might even get your scrying sensor close enough for it to travel the intervening distance for a more close-up look.
This sounds like a good subject for a Ph.D. dissertation: The effects of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity on the game of Pathfinder.
Also a valid point. But say you're aiming for a neighbouring moon or planet rather than a star and aren't terribly concerned with accuracy, might a caster not be able to get his arcane eye sensor to appear close enough to his target to study it? Even being a few hundred or even a thousand miles off would still afford a spellcaster with a great view.
A random die roll for 'close' objects in space? I can buy that.
|
Except the Perception rules govern what you see, and the DC to see something with Perception increase by 1 for every 10 feet.An interesting point. But, by that logic, wouldn't a spellcaster need to make a perception check to establish the limits of his line of sight before casting any ranged spell? A spellcaster with no ranks in perception might not be able to aim a fireball 100 feet away in a well lit open area because of a particularly poor roll. Spells with a long range would be all but impossible to aim beyond some 300-400 ft because of the high DC involved in seeing a target that far away due to the penalties to perception checks.
You're correct. The Perception rules do in fact force you to make a check in order to target a foe 400 feet away. Just because many people choose to ignore this rule doesn't make it any less a rule.
You're correct. The Perception rules do in fact force you to make a check in order to target a foe 400 feet away. Just because many people choose to ignore this rule doesn't make it any less a rule.
Fair enough. But what if your target is merely an area or something so big that you can plainly see it?
Setting aside the the question of celestial bodies for the moment, imagine a caster looking at a big castle standing on a promontory far across a river valley; say a few miles away. The caster can see the castle and is able to make out its towers though not the guards (if any) walking upon them. The caster can even make out that its big drawbridge is raised, though he can't make out individual windows on the structure. He says he wants to cast arcane eye and to have the sensor appear "at the castle" so that he can get a closer look and possibly explore inside. Now, in spite of the castle's size and visibility, the caster can't hope to make a perception check because of the -1,000 penalty to any perception checks at that range. What happens when he casts the spell?
When you cast a spell, you have to be able to target the specific 5 square hex you're centering it on.
"Long" range spells have a range of 400-ft +40-ft/level; so a modest 10th level caster has a maximum range of 800-ft. But at 800-ft, the perception penalty for anything the size of a 5-ft square is -80, even in the best of circumstances. With a DC all but impossible to achieve, what's the point of having any spells with a range that big? Why bother having a "long range" entry in spell descriptions at all if no one can exploit them? Even with all manner of magical items and buffs, there'd simply be no way for a caster to ever actually cast at those distances, let alone the 1,200-ft range of a 20th level spellcaster.
To clarify, I believe it's fair to require a perception check to target specific creatures that are a significant distance away but I believe that, with an unobstructed view, a caster should be able to roughly position a spell effect in a distant location beyond what a perception skill check might indicate. I'm not taking about pinpoint precision; people aren't natural range-finders after all. But if "close enough" is sufficient for a caster's needs and there's nothing blocking his view then it seems to me that casting at long range should be feasible, though perhaps not elegant.
I'm of mixed thoughts on this.
On the one hand:
A wizard (or whoever) can land the spell where the spell says they can land it. Be it 800 feet or 42,000 miles. If the spell allows for it, it allows for it. Giving an 800 foot range that is nearly (or literally) impossible due to perception rules to actually do is just.. stupid. I'd say the rules of the spell overtake the general perception rules.
On the other hand though:
900 feet is 3 foot ball fields away. You are talking about a person with an unaided eye targeting a 5 foot spot 3 foot ball fields away with enough accuracy to make sure their 20 foot spread hits every target without missing any.
I'd probably still go with the first interpretation though since otherwise the ability to have a long range spell at all is effectively eliminated.. and I can't think that was something done purposefully.
But its still a head scratcher.
(i can't see that far away but dang if I can't hit it with a fireball!)
-S
|
|
Circumstance bonuses from a huge magical telescope to act as a spotter for your 800ft. range spell?
Some spells also have that range because you can cast it and then move away from the zone up to that range before the distance cancels it.
Think about artillery and the fact that often the gunner can't see what he's shooting: he needs someone with binoculars to spot the target for him and then give him the exact coordinates. Another way would be scrying: have a flyer drop something on the enemy camp that you want to bomb, or have your improved familiar with invisibility at will move into the area. Scry on them and then cast your ridiculous range spell.
Who says it needs to be an exact hex/square? The spell does not mention it.
I think this spell is fine as it is. Why wouldn't wizards explore other planets like this?
Who says it needs to be an exact hex/square? The spell does not mention it.
I think this spell is fine as it is. Why wouldn't wizards explore other planets like this?
Because except for very close planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter on very clear nights), planets are, for all intents and purposes, invisible. When you look up into the night sky, you see stars, not planets. So, *how* do you see the planet you want to cast it on? The reason you need to have a definite line of sight on a single object is because in any portion of the night sky (say a single square inch) there could be hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions, of celestial bodies between your naked eye and edge of the cosmos along the path your eyes are pointed. You need a specific target.
You need a specific target.
I agree with you that, to explore a specific celestial body a caster needs, at a minimum, the ability to see it. I disagree however that a specific target is required. If a caster wants to cast arcane eye and have the sensor appear "100 feet overhead" or "1,000 feet overhead (say to get a bird's eye view of his surroundings) and has an unobstructed view of that spot above, it seems to me that his target area is defined sufficiently well to not have any problems casting his spell. For that reason, I wouldn't see a problem with aiming to have the sensor appear "1,000,000 miles overhead". Granted, there's not likely to be anything remarkable in the vicinity of that spot to see, but it might make it possible for an intrepid astronomer to discover otherwise invisible planets in the night sky such as Neptune and Uranus if he's lucky; even if initially they're only visible as pinpoints of light. Later, during subsequent castings, the astronomer could aim to get his sensor to appear closer and closer to his newly discovered planets with a bit of planning and luck.
Distant Worlds discusses, briefly, why you can't use spells like greater teleport and scrying, which are supposed to have unlimited range, over interplanetary (let alone interstellar) distances. The answer is basically that we're not sure, but the point remains that it's not possible. Logically, the same would apply to something like arcane eye or any other spell that ostensibly lacks a range limitation.
As an aside, my personal theory is that the void of space is inherently hostile, and rejects such magics as a part of its very nature.
Because except for very close planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter on very clear nights), planets are, for all intents and purposes, invisible. When you look up into the night sky, you see stars, not planets.Who says it needs to be an exact hex/square? The spell does not mention it.
I think this spell is fine as it is. Why wouldn't wizards explore other planets like this?
No, I see stars and planets that may look like very bright stars. Typically the brightest object in the night sky is a planet and I can pick out Venus, Mars, and Jupiter in the night sky with the naked eye.
If you look at a ship on the ocean horizon, it may appear as a dot. If you know it is a ship, then the spell should work as described just fine. Planets shouldn't matter just because they are farther away.
Distant Worlds discusses, briefly, why you can't use spells like greater teleport and scrying, which are supposed to have unlimited range, over interplanetary (let alone interstellar) distances.
Hm. It seems you're right. Then again, elsewhere in the same book it makes mention of astronomers studying a distant planet with telescopes and scrying magics.
No, I see stars and planets that may look like very bright stars. Typically the brightest object in the night sky is a planet and I can pick out Venus, Mars, and Jupiter in the night sky with the naked eye.
If you look at a ship on the ocean horizon, it may appear as a dot. If you know it is a ship, then the spell should work as described just fine. Planets shouldn't matter just because they are farther away.
Read my words. I said those planets meaning yes those are possible with the naked eye. You go point out a planet beyond our solar system with the naked eye just by looking up at night and I'll concede the point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some math for you.
The distance from Japan to California is about 7,000 miles. You simply can't see this far because of the curvature of Earth. However, assuming Earth was flat and you could theoretically see that far with perfectly clear conditions, you would not be able to distinguish any definable feature in Japan if you were standing in California. You would do better to spot a single grain of sand across a beach. In strict game terms, 7,000 miles would require a DC 3,696,000 perception check. But it's a planet so it's large, you say?
The distance to the nearest star is 2.47927106 × 10^13 miles away. Since planets are tens of thousands of miles in diameter large. Let's convert that number to feet and then divide by 50,000 (even though Earth is only ~8,000 miles in diameter) and say we're looking at a huge planet and let's base our planet to planet perception DC on that number rather than the "real" one. Jupiter is only about ~90,000 miles in diameter. That brings us to 495,854,212 miles. In feet, that's 2,618,110,239,360. Take one tenth of that for our perception adjustment and that a DC mod of 261,811,023,936 perception check.
But! Let's be generous. Since, raw game terms don't work for real life as viewing Venus from Earth would be about a DC 300 perception check if you just measure by feet, let's say it's a DC 15 since you need to look for it since it's just another bright light in the sky and can take a moment to narrow down. Pairing 300 down to 15 is a factor of 20. Bringing the nearest star DC down similarly still gives us 13,090,551,200. Let's pair that down by another factor of 100 just for shits and giggles. Hell, 100,000 cuz we're all loons in an asylum. We still have a DC of 13,090. There isn't the slightest snowballs-chance-in-hell that you're going to make out a planet near that star.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The speed of light is why this does not work. You pick a point in space that you can see. Your sensor lands there, several hundred light years away. In those past hundred years, the target has moved a considerable distance relative to you. It's not where you're looking.
Grats. Your sensor lands you on the Sun and you're permanently blinded. You win! :)
And I know that I'm going on a bit, but the big reason why I think it works is that I really can't see any reason to say no. "Okay, you spend the evening exploring a small bit of the moon." or "You get a magnificent view from what must be a distant system of planets." That's probably about where it would end, and then the party would continue adventuring the next day. It's a neat way to spend a spell to flesh out a character a little more.+1. Well said. In addition, if ever the caster were to witness something interesting on a distant planet as described by the GM and was moved to somehow follow up on it, then great! The GM has introduced a fun new adventure hook! How can that be bad?
Grats. Your sensor lands you on the Sun and you're permanently blinded. You win! :)
I don't believe it'd be possible to be blinded via an arcane eye; anymore than one could be petrified by a gaze attack via an arcane eye. Even if the arcane eye's scrying sensor were somehow overwhelmed by bright light (a possibility which the spell description makes no mention of) it's not as if the caster's real eyes had been similarly damaged. The caster could simply dismiss the spell open his real eyes and be fine.
I don't believe it'd be possible to be blinded via an arcane eye; anymore than one could be petrified by a gaze attack via an arcane eye. Even if the arcane eye's scrying sensor were somehow overwhelmed by bright light (a possibility which the spell description makes no mention of) it's not as if the caster's real eyes had been similarly damaged. The caster could simply dismiss the spell open his real eyes and be fine.
You're comparing apples to oranges by matching being blinded by a bright light to gaze. Gaze attacks are magical effects. All it takes to be blinded is to have an intense light shown in your eye. That would not be a magical effect and stars are the brightest common object in the universe. You can go blind by looking at the sun too much with the naked eye IRL. Why would that change simply because you're looking at a light source through what is essentially a window? The intensity of the light would not change.
Once you cast the first arcane eye, somewhere in the vicinity of a celestial object, can't you see with more detail to target another one? For that matter, if your character is good at geometry and can estimate angles well, casting an arcane eye "100 million miles directly towards THAT star" and doing the trig could result in a very good measurement of distance to other objects.
All it takes to be blinded is to have an intense light shown in your eye. That would not be a magical effect and stars are the brightest common object in the universe. You can go blind by looking at the sun too much with the naked eye IRL.
What you say is true, but bears little relevance to this spell since the caster of arcane eye isn't perceiving light with his own eyes. The spell creates "an invisible magical sensor that sends you visual information" and since "You must concentrate to use an arcane eye" it would seem that the distant images are perceived mentally. So, IMO, it isn't "essentially a window" like you say.