Will this make my GM upset?


Advice


Prying Eye is an old spell we use to use in PF1 it use to frustrate out old GM to the point where it seemed like everyone had See Invisibility preped that day including mooks. So we learned to never use it again. Now PF2 has arrived, we have a new GM and have no idea how he will respond to this type of a spell. Is this spell legit to use or is it considered pretty cheesy? Honestly Im not trying to frustrate my GM, I just want to be able to see what's in the next room so I can prebuff and prepare, even though there are probably better uses to this spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why it would. It's a 5th level spell slot to get information about what's coming up, it feels like a fair trade off. It can only be sustained for 10 minutes, so its not like you can cover the entire complex (especially one with doors). With durations of buffs being changed as well, prebuff and battle isn't as troublesome/necessary as it was before.


Typically isn't there an inch under the doors or anything so the eye can go through doors?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Typically isn't there an inch under the doors or anything so the eye can go through doors?

Depends on your DM and where you are. An inch is bigger than you think. I wouldn't enjoy an inch gap under my door during the cold months.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In Pathfinder 1e

I would probably just ask the party to stop casting invisibility on them as their stealth score is likely intended to represent that they are semitangible in the first place.

I wouldn't really call it cheese, it takes a decent amount of spell investment to make them functional (darkvision/truesight need to be granted, they cannot open doors and such) and even then your commands to them have to be under 25words.

Yes they can be useful, no I wouldn't say they are cheesy or broken (at least not any more than other spells that are available when you are level 9+).

In Pathfinder 2e

In PF2e it is permanently invisible, but that matters a lot less as it is a sustain effect and it doesn't get its own actions, meaning no hide.

So it is only hidden by default, rather than unobserved. And since the eye only lasts for 1 minute it is much harder to abuse and requires some creative setup.

Personally I don't have an issue with it, Clairvoyance is generally better imo.

And no, there is no way that there would be an inch under doors... Not unless it was goblin construction.

Aside from temperatures it would make it WAYYYYY too easy to bar or break doors, let in all sorts of vermin/insects and generally just be an awful idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason why this spell used to cause frustration are not as significantly present in PF2.

Specifically, it used to be that the difficulty of an encounter could be extremely affected by pre-buffing and how the GM prepared in regards to it - if the GM set up a challenge that would be fair without buffs, the party being buffed makes it a cake-walk, but if the GM sets up the challenge so that it's challenging for the buffed-up characters, they'll all likely end up dead if for whatever reason this time is the time the players don't buff up.

And in PF2, buffs help, and are worth using - they just don't help so much that following the encounter building guidelines doesn't work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my players used this to scout an entire doorless dungeon last night. It was eventually taken out by a giant mantis shrimp, but it alerted them to 2 dangerous rooms they could skip and gave them enough warning on the mantis shrimp to suspend an Archer on the ceiling above it. The fastest punch on the planet wasn't enough to save it without ranged weapons. Was I a little disappointed about the cool monster I'd built not being used in a fight? Yeah. But on the other hand the party had invested the time and resources to figure out such a strategy, so I was happy with it. Plus it was an excuse to play "True Facts About the Mantis Shrimp."

So how much your GM cares about these things is going to vary a lot. But in general, to paraphrase Dungeon World, your GM should be a fan of the player characters and want them to do cool things. The GM should also be putting them in dire situations, but if players can use clever tactics to mitigate this danger, well, that's awesome too. My players recognized the danger of the mantis shrimp and brainstormed how to defeat it without fighting it, recognizing how dangerous it would be. That is a fine outcome as well.


Yeah, you can't really buff in PF2 like you could in PF1 so it's not as helpful.

This spell also has a duration of sustained, meaning if you end up in combat you're probably going to lose it. It also can only take a single attack, so once it gets noticed you're going to lose it.


Atalius wrote:
Typically isn't there an inch under the doors or anything so the eye can go through doors?

I'd be surprised if there is any door in your home that has one inch between the the door and the floor beneath it when it's closed. I would figure the distance is closer to 1/2 inch. For an external door, even less.


True maybe a quarter inch that's about it. So would a viable strategy be to cast a cantrip that opens the door (mage hand), then have the eye go in there and take a peek, rinse and repeat multiple rooms?


Saldiven wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Typically isn't there an inch under the doors or anything so the eye can go through doors?
I'd be surprised if there is any door in your home that has one inch between the the door and the floor beneath it when it's closed. I would figure the distance is closer to 1/2 inch. For an external door, even less.

It also depends on the material of the floor. Carpet tends to have a wider gap than hardwood because of the friction carpet causes. Or it'll have *less* gap because the door wasn't resized when carpet was added during a renovation (so the half inch gap was zero'd out). Or vice-versa. And how level the floor is and how well hung the door is, and so on. The sloppier the construction (or things having just settled over long durations), the wider the gap.

Exterior doors do have an equivalent gap, just that there is a flexible material that acts as a weather barrier filling the space. Because--for some reason--people don't like cold drafts in the winter. Removing the weather stripping (or having it get damaged) will reveal the gap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
True maybe a quarter inch that's about it. So would a viable strategy be to cast a cantrip that opens the door (mage hand), then have the eye go in there and take a peek, rinse and repeat multiple rooms?

I think if you have to open the door, you're potentially going to alert the rest of the dungeon, if there's anyone in there.

Doors don't usually just open themselves and if there are any observant guards it might be enough to provoke greater investigation.

There's a lot of what-ifs in these kinds of scenario, enough that I don't think it should be considered reliable even 50% of the time.


Gotcha, are you guys trying to say you would pass on this spell?


I think it is pretty good, but again, hard to say. If you're delving into doorless caves it is great, but an urban campaign will run into issues. It seems like a decent pick at higher levels when your 5th level spells aren't as relevant to combat.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It was really useful in my APG playtest. The dungeon had doors, but it also had two relatively doorless areas with a lot of benefit from scouting. It, combined with invisibility spheres and a clutch 4th-level silence, allowed the party to avoid I think over 20 encounters in a 30+ room dungeon, fighting only 4 times (negotiating once, so 5 encounters).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know when I'm GMing, I always appreciate it when my players talk to me about a plan they are unsure is sportsmanlike before they try it.

I would strongly encourage you to ask your GM if it will upset them. If the answer is yes, ask what about it in particular is a problem for them. Maybe the two of you can find a happy compromise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vallarthis wrote:

I know when I'm GMing, I always appreciate it when my players talk to me about a plan they are unsure is sportsmanlike before they try it.

I would strongly encourage you to ask your GM if it will upset them. If the answer is yes, ask what about it in particular is a problem for them. Maybe the two of you can find a happy compromise.

This. Instead of asking a bunch of people on the internet how your gm feels about a thing, try asking your gm. We can all theorise but it won't be as useful as just asking the person (who you conveniently have access to!).

You aren't going to upset your gm by asking questions (unless your are impolite about it or they are not the kind of person who should be gming anyway, as a person who is unwilling to deal with player questions is kind of sabotaging their own role) - so just ask! Most GMs would very much appreciate their players asking about these things.

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
... allowed the party to avoid I think over 20 encounters in a 30+ room dungeon, fighting only 4 times (negotiating once, so 5 encounters).

This is heresy to some folks. Encounters and conflict are why many people play. My son is unhappy when one of my diplomancers talks us past an encounter. His logic is that I basically soloed it and prevented the rest of the party from participating/enjoying that creature.

Sovereign Court

DougSeay wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
... allowed the party to avoid I think over 20 encounters in a 30+ room dungeon, fighting only 4 times (negotiating once, so 5 encounters).
This is heresy to some folks. Encounters and conflict are why many people play. My son is unhappy when one of my diplomancers talks us past an encounter. His logic is that I basically soloed it and prevented the rest of the party from participating/enjoying that creature.

Maybe this has something to do with how the adventure is framed? Some adventures feel like "kill all the monsters - take all the treasure - get all the XP". The monster fights are the point of the dungeon.

Others are "steal the MacGuffin, stop the ritual, save the dragon from the evil princess". If the major reason to go to the dungeon isn't the little fights in the corridors, then avoiding some of them feels less like a steal.

Especially if there are LOTS of enemies and fighting all of them would basically cause the party to run out of resources/arrive late to the main event. At that point you'd rather scout your way past some encounters, talk your way past others, or have your son blitz through those that can't be bypassed or where the bypass would take too long. The main event of the dungeon should of course never be solo'ed.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Will this make my GM upset? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.