|
... particularly when the spell has no visible effect, such as with Zone of Truth. Do you have to somehow test empirically whether the spell succeeded?
In PF1 the published rule (or maybe it was a FAQ) was that you knew if a direct target had failed (such as Charm, Suggestion, Hold Person nee Paralyze, etc.) but not if they were in an AOE effect. Zone of Truth would have been a case where the caster does not know.
PF2 hasn't published a similar rule either way as far as I know, but testing Zone of Truth empirically is pretty easy if it's an interrogation situation. Ask the subject to state that the sky is purple or something similar. A deception check to make it less concrete could also be something your GM might allow.
|
|
PF2 hasn't published a similar rule either way as far as I know, but testing Zone of Truth empirically is pretty easy if it's an interrogation situation. Ask the subject to state that the sky is purple or something similar. A deception check to make it less concrete could also be something your GM might allow.
Couldn't the subject just decline to state the sky is purple regardless of whether they're under the effect?
Would detect magic work, supposing one could narrow its focus to the subject and ignore whatever magical equipment they have?
PF2 hasn't published a similar rule either way as far as I know, but testing Zone of Truth empirically is pretty easy if it's an interrogation situation. Ask the subject to state that the sky is purple or something similar. A deception check to make it less concrete could also be something your GM might allow.Couldn't the subject just decline to state the sky is purple regardless of whether they're under the effect?
Would detect magic work, supposing one could narrow its focus to the subject and ignore whatever magical equipment they have?
For the first question, by "interrogation situation" I mean that the caster could decline to set them on fire if they decline to answer, but he might not.
For the second, um, yeah, good idea.
When I see spells like Nudge Fate or Share Burden I tend to think you know absolutely everything happening around you. That would be ridiculous to consider you don't know the result of a save against one of your spell when you know if an ally will fail a save by just one point.
|
|
For the first question, by "interrogation situation" I mean that the caster could decline to set them on fire if they decline to answer, but he might not.
I mean that if they say "no," wouldn't it not be informative because they could have said that despite having succeeded at their will save? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the riddle.
PF2 hasn't published a similar rule either way as far as I know, but testing Zone of Truth empirically is pretty easy if it's an interrogation situation. Ask the subject to state that the sky is purple or something similar. A deception check to make it less concrete could also be something your GM might allow.Couldn't the subject just decline to state the sky is purple regardless of whether they're under the effect?
Would detect magic work, supposing one could narrow its focus to the subject and ignore whatever magical equipment they have?
For the first question, by "interrogation situation" I mean that the caster could decline to set them on fire if they decline to answer, but he might not.
My thought as well, you might decline to state an obvious lie to prevent your interrogator from knowing if the spell worked on you.
You might also find yourself methodically tortured (and magically healed) until you feel compliant.
For the first question, by "interrogation situation" I mean that the caster could decline to set them on fire if they decline to answer, but he might not.I mean that if they say "no," wouldn't it not be informative because they could have said that despite having succeeded at their will save? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the riddle.
It's no riddle. They're saying the interrogator will beat the s&@~ out of you until you comply. That is pretty classic in terms of the depiction of interrogation (though it's pretty inaccurate because under duress people will say literally whatever they think their captors want to hear, but also we have magic that discern if the person believes their words to be true....so until they start convincing themselves that what you want to hear is true you're going to be beaten senseless).
If you can't tell me what color the sky is, do you really need your eyes or tongue? You're clearly not using them for anything.
Couldn't the subject just decline to state the sky is purple regardless of whether they're under the effect?That one might fail hilariously in a cosmopolitan fantasy city.
Example from wikipedia The ancient Greeks classified colours by whether they were light or dark, rather than by their hue. The Greek word for dark blue, kyaneos, could also mean dark green, violet, black or brown.
Add in some real fantasy elf-eyes, and it'll only get worse.
The sky might literally be purple when you have low light vision. I mean... you ever look at the sky when you are near a city, and the light pollution gives it that look?
Elves have that all the time, i would imagine. Heck, i am worried that they still have the term "strong starlight" buried somewhere in the rules.