"Scry & Fry."


Rules Questions

501 to 539 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Incorrect in that both are tested separately. Correct that if one factor does not meet the requirements, the whole test fails to some degree. If the location does not exist, you get a 'false destination'. That is not its own test. That is part of the familiarity test. You get the same result if you do not know the layout.
Quote:


Only the familiarity test gives a conclusion for success or failure.

Wrong again, if the location fails, its no different than if it were out of range. The spell fails altogether. It's common sense (or given this thread, maybe not all that common) that if you don't know where you are going, you can't get there.

Please cite.

The spell handles the location not existing in the familiarity test. So please show us where it handles the location not existing elsewhere in the spell.

In my version of it, if there isn't a place matching your description (layout) in the general location you were picturing, that combination is a false destination. Hence, it's handled in the familiarity test. I would rather if they had spelled that out, since I imagine it's the principal cause of false destinations.

Edit: ninjaed by Quintain


Berinor wrote:
In my version of it, if there isn't a place matching your description (layout) in the general location you were picturing, that combination is a false destination. Hence, it's handled in the familiarity test. I would rather if they had spelled that out, since I imagine it's the principal cause of false destinations.

Most people completely ignore false destination, mistakenly believing that scry gave them the required information based on that single sentence.

As it is an easy method of travel, no one really wanted the game to be more difficult.

Path of least resistance, really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Berinor wrote:
I know you cited an adventure and alluded to another, but the 3.5 era one was as a licensed third party to the rules then and even a Pathfinder example could easily be an oversight. It's not unprecedented for them to slip through with broken rules and taking a position opposite the party line here is a smaller error than that.

James outright said that he has changed his mind since that 3.5 example.

Source.

James wasn't in charge of the rules then and he still isn't. Him changing his mind isn't the game changing, it's one (influential) person's interpretation changing. I respect his opinions and reconsider my own when they're at odds, but they're just that and not the source of truth.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:
Quote:

Please show us where a separate test of location validity is written.

You must input a destination into the spell as part of the spell. A failed location reference is handled by the familiarity test.

And the familiarity test is a compound one. You input a destination, and knowledge of the layout. The required parameters of the spell.

Quote:


You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.

As how it works in programming languages, the first required condition in the if statement is location, that is tested first. If that fails, you go to jail and do not collect $200. Because at that point the entire test fails. You know this. If location fails, layout is superfluous.

You still teleport, but you won't get to where you want to go, there is no successfully reaching your desired destination under those conditions. You either get a "similar area" which is not your actual destination or you get a mishap.

See the chart under "False Destination".

Greater Teleport changes this. If you input an invalid destination, you teleport, but you arrive back where you started.

So, then, you change your original view of how the spell works over to my view of how it works in regards to the familiarity test and location?

In that if the location fails the spell does not fail. Which you said it did just a bit ago. You instead get a result of 'false destination?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you don't provide a location, the spell fails. If the location and layout you provide doesn't exist, it's a false destination.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:
Berinor wrote:
In my version of it, if there isn't a place matching your description (layout) in the general location you were picturing, that combination is a false destination. Hence, it's handled in the familiarity test. I would rather if they had spelled that out, since I imagine it's the principal cause of false destinations.

Most people completely ignore false destination, mistakenly believing that scry gave them the required information based on that single sentence.

As it is an easy method of travel, no one really wanted the game to be more difficult.

Path of least resistance, really.

Did you read 'false destination'? It only requires that the destination exists. Not that you get an address down to the T and can walk there from anywhere in the cosmos.

You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in. That is what the test checks for.


Quote:


So, then, you change your original view of how the spell works over to my view of how it works in regards to the familiarity test and location?

In that if the location fails the spell does not fail. Which you said it did just a bit ago. You instead get a result of 'false destination?

No, I don't change my original view at all, the spell failing is not reaching the intended destination of your teleport after using scry (at least that is how I see it).

That is what I have been saying all along. I don't care about the minutiae of whether you actually move locations or not, the tactic of teleporting to someone after using just scry and then teleporting results in you not getting to where you want to go and do what you wanted to do, because you don't have enough information.

In otherwords, it doesn't work.

I haven't changed my stance at all.


[qutoe]
You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in. That is what the test checks for.

And if you do not have a location of that place, then you don't get there...false destination at best, mishap at worse.

Personally, as a GM, I'd make it an auto-mishap.

Quote:


It only requires that the destination exists. Not that you get an address down to the T and can walk there from anywhere in the cosmos.

No, it also requires that you know where that destination is. Knowing that it exists does not give you it's location.

Quote:


You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in.

This sentence sounds like you agree with me. Am I misunderstanding?

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:
Quote:


So, then, you change your original view of how the spell works over to my view of how it works in regards to the familiarity test and location?

In that if the location fails the spell does not fail. Which you said it did just a bit ago. You instead get a result of 'false destination?

No, I don't change my original view at all, the spell failing is not reaching the intended destination of your teleport after using scry (at least that is how I see it).

That is what I have been saying all along. I don't care about the minutiae of whether you actually move locations or not, the tactic of teleporting to someone after using just scry and then teleporting results in you not getting to where you want to go and do what you wanted to do, because you don't have enough information.

In otherwords, it doesn't work.

I haven't changed my stance at all.

Oh? And isn't the spell failing and you going to the wrong destination part of the familiarity test?

Thus, you are saying there is no separate location test before the familiarity test?
Wouldn't that be changing your mind, then, from when you insisted there was a separate test?


Berinor wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in.
This sentence sounds like you agree with me. Am I misunderstanding?

No, you are misunderstanding him. What he is missing is that you also must know where the place is located as well.

He thinks scry gives you that because you can see 10' radius around where someone is standing.

and you can't. Because that is not a location, despite protestations to the contrary.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:

[qutoe]

You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in. That is what the test checks for.

And if you do not have a location of that place, then you don't get there...false destination at best, mishap at worse.

Personally, as a GM, I'd make it an auto-mishap.

Quote:


It only requires that the destination exists. Not that you get an address down to the T and can walk there from anywhere in the cosmos.

No, it also requires that you know where that destination is. Knowing that it exists does not give you it's location.

Quote:


You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.

Yes, the part of the spell that describes how it is supposed to function in Golarion says that. The part of the spell that shows you mechanically how it works says that the location must exist, but does not say you have to be able to walk there. Only that you can picture the location of the destination and the layout of the destination.

How much of that location you need to know... it is rather quiet on.

Do I actually have to picture the entirety of the cosmos while picture the location? Or can I reference off of 'a specific item I know is in a place, and the place I which to teleport to is next to it'. It does not say.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:
Berinor wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in.
This sentence sounds like you agree with me. Am I misunderstanding?

No, you are misunderstanding him. What he is missing is that you also must know where the place is located as well.

He thinks scry gives you that because you can see 10' radius around where someone is standing.

and you can't. Because that is not a location, despite protestations to the contrary.

If you remember, I said that the 10' may not give it to you. But if the person walks around that it can.


Quote:


Oh? And isn't the spell failing and you going to the wrong destination part of the familiarity test?

Thus, you are saying there is no separate location test before the familiarity test?
Wouldn't that be changing your mind, then, from when you insisted there was a separate test?

Again, the "familiarity test" as you call it is a compound test. If you break down the compound test to it's individual sub-tests logically, you test the first and and then the next in sequence (at the lower level), if the first sub-test of the compound test fails, the logic causes the entire test to fail and the remaining sub-tests aren't even tested.

There is no such thing as a multiple-condition simultaneous compound test.

You know this to be true. You have the education to know it, if what you are stating about your profession is true. You are being pedantic at best.

The results of this initial sub-test is covered under "False destination".

I've never said otherwise.

What I have said is that the idea of the Scry and Fry (teleporting based on the information given by scrying) will fail because you won't be frying your intended target. Ever.

It fails. Whether you move locations from point A to some random point in range that looks like the room your target is in is wholly immaterial. Focusing on whether the teleport doesn't happen or works but goes to a different location is sophistry.


Quote:


If you remember, I said that the 10' may not give it to you. But if the person walks around that it can.

If you remember, I've said this as well. In many different posts. Before you joined the conversation, in fact.

Quote:


The part of the spell that shows you mechanically how it works says that the location must exist, but does not say you have to be able to walk there.

No one has claimed that you literally have to be able to walk there on two feet. You could use any mode of transportation you want, but you need to be able to get there in some fashion...you must know it's location or you end up somewhere else.

It's like saying you want to go to Miami by travelling through Europe. You can't get there from here.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Berinor wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
You must picture a place, that place must exist where and in what state you picture it existing in.
This sentence sounds like you agree with me. Am I misunderstanding?

No, you are misunderstanding him. What he is missing is that you also must know where the place is located as well.

He thinks scry gives you that because you can see 10' radius around where someone is standing.

and you can't. Because that is not a location, despite protestations to the contrary.

If you remember, I said that the 10' may not give it to you. But if the person walks around that it can.

Does this mean that (in your gut - I promise not to do a gotcha) there's a point at which concentric circles will say enough about where? And that that point is something that might legitimately happen during a single scrying? Or just that walking around enough will eventually give enough context to recognize unique landmarks, plants, or whatever?


Lorewalker wrote:


If you remember, I said that the 10' may not give it to you. But if the person walks around that it can.

Gimme a few minutes to hide all my mail and then scry me. How does knowing the layout of my house, and possibly my property within 10 ft of any windows, tell you geographically where the house is?

Supposing I never leave, you might become intimately familiar with the interior of my house. You might know where I keep the peanut butter and which cushion the remote is under. None of that helps you if you don't know WHERE the house is. No location, no teleport


Berinor wrote:


Does this mean that (in your gut - I promise not to do a gotcha) there's a point at which concentric circles will say enough about where? And that that point is something that might legitimately happen during a single scrying? Or just that walking around enough will eventually give enough context to recognize unique landmarks, plants, or whatever?

There won't be any concentric circles, but a circle that moves, and if the subject say exits the building he is in and goes to a street intersection and you see that it is 10th and Main street and you recognize the background to be in New York City, you are good to go for a teleport under "viewed once" in that case.

This is rare, however, and demonstrably not what is meant by scry and fry.

Scarab Sages

Quintain wrote:
Quote:


Oh? And isn't the spell failing and you going to the wrong destination part of the familiarity test?

Thus, you are saying there is no separate location test before the familiarity test?
Wouldn't that be changing your mind, then, from when you insisted there was a separate test?

Again, the "familiarity test" as you call it is a compound test. If you break down the compound test to it's individual sub-tests logically, you test the first and and then the next in sequence (at the lower level), if the first sub-test of the compound test fails, the logic causes the entire test to fail and the remaining sub-tests aren't even tested.

There is no such thing as a multiple-condition simultaneous compound test.

You know this to be true. You have the education to know it, if what you are stating about your profession is true. You are being pedantic at best.

The results of this initial sub-test is covered under "False destination".

I've never said otherwise.

What I have said is that the idea of the Scry and Fry (teleporting based on the information given by scrying) will fail because you won't be frying your intended target. Ever.

It fails. Whether you move locations from point A to some random point in range that looks like the room your target is in is wholly immaterial. Focusing on whether the teleport doesn't happen or works but goes to a different location is sophistry.

Yes, you did say it was different. 'You know this to be true in your heart'. Or at least you can read where you said that it was different.

You said... "Wrong again, if the location fails, its no different than if it were out of range."
That is not a 'false destination'. That is a 'spell fails completely'.
You said this. Look up in the thread. Do not tell me again that you did not say it. We can all read it.

Also, Pathfinder is not a program. It does not work like a program. This has been peppered throughout the forum any time anyone tries to treat it as such. It does not have the same limitations. But even if it were... then...
The familiarity test accepts seven factors. The location of an intended destination, the layout of an intended destination, how many times you have visited the location, how many times you have viewed the location, currently viewing the destination?, feels at home at location? and the cosmos.

If the location or layout is incorrect, you get false destination.

If the location chosen exists in the cosmos, and the layout of that location matches close enough, you then use the remaining factors to decide the odds of reaching your intended target.

Thus, yes, you need to know if the location and layout matches before you can no longer reach the 'false destination' condition.

Of course, this assumes that layout is actually so completely different from location, that location can not be gathered by viewing.

Thus, you can not ever teleport. As you will never know the exact destination of any place in the cosmos. Since you are, seemingly, not allowed to reference from a known place in the cosmos. Without knowing where you are, exactly, where the destination is, exactly, and what the exact details of the cosmos between the two places... teleport will fail under your definition. As you will not know the exact place the dungeon lies. 5 feet off makes a huge difference, if the room is only 10 feet squared.

And this only works(the selection of a location) since you earlier accepted that you can use the reference of 'I am here' to allow you to teleport to 'place I see there'. Thus allowing you to reference a place in the cosmos other than your target, being the place you are.

But, under my definition, you can reference a location based on a place, or monument or object you have seen in the cosmos and state 'next to that'.


It's been a couple of pages since I mentioned it last, so here it goes again.

Manly-man teapot wrote:

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.


If I want to teleport to my parents house after they have re decorated then I can. I know the location as I was born and raised there, I can picture in my head where it is. However if the bedroom I want to teleport into has been turned into a study then my familiarity decreases. I know where the window and door is and the size and shape of the room but it is no longer very familiar.

If I want to teleport to my friends house that I have been skyping then I can't, even if I know the details of his room precisely because I don't know where in the world that room is. However if I know he has moved to the town of xxx in xxx which is roughly xxx in the country of xxx then I can.

If this location rule didn't exist then you could never teleport to a place that had a place similar enough for you to mistake it for another. No one would ever be able to teleport unless their destination was unique and the caster knew it well enough to know those uniquenesses.

For those saying knowing location isn't required: it is explicitly written in the spell description in the corerulebook and has been quoted many times across this thread.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

If I want to teleport to my parents house after they have re decorated then I can. I know the location as I was born and raised there, I can picture in my head where it is. However if the bedroom I want to teleport into has been turned into a study then my familiarity decreases. I know where the window and door is and the size and shape of the room but it is no longer very familiar.

If I want to teleport to my friends house that I have been skyping then I can't, even if I know the details of his room precisely because I don't know where in the world that room is. However if I know he has moved to the town of xxx in xxx which is roughly xxx in the country of xxx then I can.

If this location rule didn't exist then you could never teleport to a place that had a place similar enough for you to mistake it for another. No one would ever be able to teleport unless their destination was unique and the caster knew it well enough to know those uniquenesses.

For those saying knowing location isn't required: it is explicitly written in the spell description in the corerulebook and has been quoted many times across this thread.

Location is definitely required. Agreed.

But what counts as a location? By what reference do you say one place is connected to another? Try, for a moment, to imagine looking down at the earth from orbit. You see a house.

Can you tell me its exact location in the cosmos?
If you can not refer to landmarks, as in 'The house next to the tree I played in as a child'. Or, 'the spot next to the vase that I am looking at right now'... then you must reference the exact position of a place as it is within the cosmos.

For the same reason, 'kitchen, villan's dungeon in the mountains of Kuresh, in the Kingdom of Ur' would not be enough... as you didn't say where the kingdom of Ur is. Nor did you say how deep into the ground the dungeon is. Nor exactly where the kitchen is in relation to the rest of the dungeon.

Or where the dungeon is in exact reference to the mountain. Or where the mountain is in exact reference to the kingdom of Ur. Is it twenty miles north and thirty miles east of the center of the southern border? Or twenty miles, 364 feet and 2.223 inches north from that exact spot and somesuch exact distance east...

The moment you allow some reference to a place from a non-referenced place... you have allowed a reference no different than 'spot next to vase I am looking at'

You must use some form of non-clear location language to pick your destination. Otherwise this whole thing is beyond ridiculous. The rub is deciding where you can cut off 'exact' location details and allow 'fuzzy' location details.

Nothing in the game gives you details so exact. Not from a distance and not without many tools and knowledge checks and perhaps something like the dwarven ability to know exactly how deep you are.

Try sometime to give exact location details about a place, and then try without giving reference to any other place but the one you are describing.

A place is referenced by what is next to a place. Always. My butt is next to my chair. My chair is next to the floor. The floor fills my living room. My living room is in my house. My house is.... well, it gets much more difficult when you have to count houses on your street and then use objective directional language to place it while limiting references. Since something as convenient as address does not exist for most of the world of Golarion.

Before anyone says 'GPS', gps also relies on reference.

Even an address would not work, as an address is a code which a human may understand with knowledge of the code but is just as metaphysically relevant to the spell as 'that place next to the famer's market in Frogtown', given a caster that has experienced the location or has knowledge of how address relates to location.

So... then... where do you draw the line at exactness of location?
Where does RAW draw the line?

My argument is that RAW does not ask for exact, it asks for you to name a destination which includes an idea of location and layout and then checks if that location exists and that the layout is as you believe. The GM can be as lenient or strict as they like due to the spell not being clear.

My argument says that a location is as simple as 'the place next to the red chair that I am looking at' or could be as complex as 'the foyer of the house house on Thomas Hill in the Province of Thea, which I have seen once'. But does not need to know exact details about a location such that you could walk there, certainly doesn't needs to know exactly how many [smallest measurement you can imagine] from the edge of the material plane from three different directions.

What matters is the caster can picture the destination, in some way, and must have experienced it in some way, so the spell has a reference of where to send the caster.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Quintain wrote:

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".

So, yet again it seems like you are saying you need to know where you are to teleport to a destination, even if that destination is very familiar, like your house. Because without knowing where you are, you can't actually 'program' the missile/teleport.

Which makes your snarky comment regarding water and cancer all the more mystifying. Did you not realize the consequence of your argument?

For the record... that was my snarky comment regarding water and cancer. Shouldn't have been mystifying though. You asked me if I meant something that clearly had no relation to what I had said... so I asked a similarly random question.

You appear to be insisting that one cannot 'know the location' of a destination without knowing one's current location... but that is simply false. Current location is just one of many possible points of reference which can be used to conceptualize another location. No matter how lost I become I still know where my house is located within my home town, where that town is located within the state, where that state is located within the country, and where that country is located on the planet. I have a very clear understanding of the location of my house... and thousands of points of reference leading me there. All of that constitutes a knowledge of location which seems like a perfectly valid interpretation of what the teleport spell requires. If knowledge of current location were always required I'd have expected that to be mentioned somewhere.

In short, while you CAN define a location relative to your current location (e.g. 'I teleport to that stand of trees I see half a mile down this hill'), your insistence that you MUST do so is incorrect. Any clearly understood relative location should suffice (e.g. 'I teleport (from a ship somewhere in the Embaral ocean) to the main hall of the lantern lodge in Goka at the gap in the Wall of Heaven mountains on the west coast of Tian Xia').


Mark Seifter wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Quintain wrote:

UI specifically states under the Teleport spell that the destination must be known and the general layout must be known as well.

Then why not add that to the spell's descriptor?
Teleport, CRB wrote:
You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.

Yes, except that the question is whether or not that can be gotten thru Scrying.


andreww wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

I think I could still make a case that RAW, scry & fry doesn't work with Greater Teleport. The spell works like teleport except where otherwise stated. The 'you must know the location' clause is not specifically excluded. You don't have to have seen the location, but if you haven't you need a reliable description. Scrying doesn't say it gives you a reliable description.

Teleport explicitly calls out scrying as providing sufficient information to allow you to teleport as "viewed once".

""Viewed once" is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying."


Kirth Gersen wrote:


There's a reason almost everyone uses the d20PFSRD instead of the official PRD.

Because it's wrong too often?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Looking further into Ulimate Intrigue, under "Scrying" (the spell, specifically): It states that in and of itself, it is not enough to facilitate a teleport. In order to facilitate a teleport, the subject of the scry would need to move around enough to give a general layout of the area (likely DM's determination), and --- and this is the important part -- the spell doesn't directly indicate location. The PCs must use contextual clues to figure this out, unless they already know where the target is."

So, this jives with the Mockingjay example I gave above.

So, the question is: Is Ultimate Intrigue overriding/modifying the RAW of the CRB? The section of UI is described as being "Advice" (aka RAI).

The CRB description says that the scrying spell and other similar magic are capable of giving you enough visual info to count as being viewed once, and UI doesn't disagree with that at all (in fact, it specifically says it could). But that's the only mention of scrying there; the CRB doesn't say that casting the spell overrides needing to have a clear idea of the location as well. I would say that since the CRB is silent (and even IMO slightly implies the same thing as UI is saying), there's no reason not to use UI here, but certainly in any game where the players and GM prefer scry and fry, I see no reason not to just run it that way instead!

So then, instead of marking this "answered in errata" (which it clearly is not) why not change the spells wording or post a FAQ saying that "It states that in and of itself, it is not enough to facilitate a teleport. In order to facilitate a teleport, the subject of the scry would need to move around enough to give a general layout of the area (likely DM's determination), and --- and this is the important part -- [b]the spell doesn't directly indicate location. The PCs must use contextual clues to figure this out, unless they already know where the target is."

It's clearly an issue and this thread makes clear. It seems like it'd be simple to fix. Just add the wording from UI, and everyone goes away satisfied. Including James Jacobs, it would seem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


There's a reason almost everyone uses the d20PFSRD instead of the official PRD.

Because it's wrong too often?

Formatting/Ease of Use/User Interface

For the same reason I never use the Archives of Nethys. Which is not a flattering looking site imo.


CBDunkerson wrote:
In short, while you CAN define a location relative to your current location (e.g. 'I teleport to that stand of trees I see half a mile down this hill'), your insistence that you MUST do so is incorrect. Any clearly understood relative location should suffice (e.g. 'I teleport (from a ship somewhere in the Embaral ocean) to the main hall of the lantern lodge in Goka at the gap in the Wall of Heaven mountains on the west coast of Tian Xia').

It wasn't 'my insistence', someone else insisted that teleport worked with relative locations instead of absolute locations.

In any case, how is your example a 'relative location' at all? That sounds like an absolute location to me, in which the absolute 'address' is provided by well-known landmarks and political designations of landforms and groups of buildings.

Is that what is required by the teleport spell? Well-known landmarks and names of landmasses? If you just said the main hall of the lantern lodge in Goka, and skipped the mountains and coast, would the spell fail?

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
In short, while you CAN define a location relative to your current location (e.g. 'I teleport to that stand of trees I see half a mile down this hill'), your insistence that you MUST do so is incorrect. Any clearly understood relative location should suffice (e.g. 'I teleport (from a ship somewhere in the Embaral ocean) to the main hall of the lantern lodge in Goka at the gap in the Wall of Heaven mountains on the west coast of Tian Xia').

It wasn't 'my insistence', someone else insisted that teleport worked with relative locations instead of absolute locations.

In any case, how is your example a 'relative location' at all? That sounds like an absolute location to me, in which the absolute 'address' is provided by well-known landmarks and political designations of landforms and groups of buildings.

Is that what is required by the teleport spell? Well-known landmarks and names of landmasses? If you just said the main hall of the lantern lodge in Goka, and skipped the mountains and coast, would the spell fail?

Relative location would be where you state one location is somewhere relative to another location.

You have not objectively defined the placement in the cosmos for your chosen location. You have stated... 'I want to teleport there, next to a spot I see' or '...next to a place I have seen before'

An absolute location is... nigh impossible to define. Unless you know how large your universe is and can measure, in three perpendicular lines that touch the edge of your universe, how far from the edge of your universe(plane, in this case) your location is. And then you must place your plane in the cosmology of the planes as it relates to those around it etc... until you reach the largest container that contains your plane.
That is absolute. Non-relative. And completely unique.

Anything less then that uses a reference to a location that is not absolutely located. It is located by relative to its proximity to a non-absolutely defined location.

Even exact measurements from 'where I stand' to 'the place I see in front of me' is not absolute. As you are measuring from a non-absolutely located location.

Considering you don't need exact measurements, and if you did the spell would be meaningless, then you should only need relative location to some other location/object that you can recognize and picture its placement.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. This argument keeps going in circles—FAQ the topic and move on. There is no need to make personal attacks against other posters. Locking thread.

501 to 539 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / "Scry & Fry." All Messageboards