(the same goes for Clairvoyance)
My question is this:
If you had a player arguing he could simply specify "the king's bedchambers" and listen in to any secret conversations, provided he could get with 500 feet, even though he's never been there and doesn't know where (in the castle) the king sleeps...
...how would you argue - using Pathfinder 2 rules logic - this is neither possible nor intended by the rules?
Certain critical language from the PF1 version was dropped you see:
"You don’t need line of sight or line of effect, but the locale must be known – a place familiar to you, or an obvious one."
was replaced by simply "You create an invisible floating ear at a location within range (even if it's outside your line of sight or line of effect)."
How do I avoid this spell getting abused by it suddenly having a "find the path" like component where you essentially tell the spell where you want to eavesdrop, and the spell goes out and finds that spot for you.
I mean, if the spell doesn't require you to have a clear mental image of the location (and its position relative everything else) then... it doesn't?
Was there perhaps any playtest discussion or devblog where reasons were formulated why the spell's language could be simplified?
Thank you
/Zapp
Reference:
http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=39 (Pathfinder 2 Clairaudience)
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/clairaudience-clairvoyance/ (Pathfinder 1 Clairaudience/voyance)
Well, the best way to foil someone attempting to use it as a location spell is to make the player specify where they want the ear to manifest. "300 feet away, 43 degrees left from my current facing." instead of "The King's bedchambers."
That way, if the player doesn't know where it is, they have to spend a great many castings of the spell to narrow it down. And if they luck out, well, then they lucked out.
The caster has to know where they want to place the ear/eye. Nowhere does the spell subtract that basic requirement (and comparing it to the PF1 version may have misled you in this regard.) The spell doesn't figure out what room is what, it goes to the spot the caster tells it to go, even if that's in the middle of rock. There are no "Find the Path" aspects. No "go to the murderer's room" or whatnot. The lack of line of sight or line of effect doesn't subtract the need for the caster to specify exactly where they're targeting (which as Kasoh noted, isn't necessarily easy). "King's bedchambers" only works when the caster knows where those are (and casts within range).
To which I'll add, there's a solid chance that people know where in a castle the king has his bedchambers! Yet the king also knows Clairaudience (& Scrying, etc.) are factors to account for.
So they may have fake chambers; other chambers where they conduct their secret, illicit, or strategic affairs; precautions like Detect Magic, or major magic that blocks divinations. Or worse, magic that tracks them back to their source so a hit squad can take out the culprits.
In other words, such a low-level spell should work only against incompetent, low-level kings; the kind that low-level PCs face and for whom these spells would represent a significant investment.
But better kings, the PCs will need to up their tactics to suit. It's just good you noted this tactic before the PCs did so you can have an appropriate level of counter-tactics in place beforehand.
I mean, you can't target like that, for the same reason why you aren't targeting magic missiles to "shoot the disguised person and not the original".
in short, "within range" is still a very physical and graspable thing and not a "narrative" one. You can basically try to setup it "180ft towards 'there'" but without very good knowledge of the interior of a place, the chance of actually getting the distance and angle wrong, for a thing you cannot see, and for judging exact feet and angle by eyesight alone, is very real.
Thank you for your comments.
---
"300 feet away, 43 degrees left" might work for some groups, but it feels decidedly modern and un-fantasy-like. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing this to be RAI. Thanks though for the idea, Kasoh.
---
"The caster has to know where they want to place the ear/eye." Can you argue for this assertion based on the rules, Castilliano?
Mind I was specifically musing over the dropped language compared to Pathfinder 1.
Your generic reasoning regarding levels is obviously correct, but it is also meta. Yes, you can run the spell in a way where a level 5 party always can make the spell work (since they're up against level 5 kings) while level 9 parties must work for it (since they're up against level 9 kings).
But it's a unsatisfactory reply to the player who wants to discuss what the spell can and cannot do based on the wording of the spell.
---
Shroudb: this spell is fairly unique in that it has no target. So I'm not finding your arguments very useful from a rules-lawyery angle. Within 500 feet doesn't say you need to follow corridors and angles and whatnot, And you don't need line of sight and you don't need line of effect.
Plus, the distance limit is seldom narratively interesting. Sure, if the palace grounds are very large you need to make a scenario out of getting close enough, but otherwise I don't find the solution to be "sorry, you're 530 feet away, the spell fails".
Zapp wrote: Thank you for your comments.
"The caster has to know where they want to place the ear/eye." Can you argue for this assertion based on the rules, Castilliano?
Mind I was specifically musing over the dropped language compared to Pathfinder 1.
Your generic reasoning regarding levels is obviously correct, but it is also meta. Yes, you can run the spell in a way where a level 5 party always can make the spell work (since they're up against level 5 kings) while level 9 parties must work for it (since they're up against level 9 kings).
But it's a unsatisfactory reply to the player who wants to discuss what the spell can and cannot do based on the wording of the spell.
You're welcome.
You can replace "ear/eye" with "fireball" if you'd like. A fireball that didn't need line of effect or line of sight couldn't use the unknown location of a "King's bedchamber" as a targeting method either. It'd be fine if the GM knows that the PC knows where said chamber is and is only using that phrase as shorthand for ease.
I don't feel any compulsion to argue for something so basic & default to how the game functions. I feel the burden's on those with alternative interpretations.
Yes, I'd noted you were musing (perhaps too much) on the dropped language. Looking at it in PF2 alone seems straightforward.
No apologies for the "obviously correct" reasoning being unsatisfactory.
Yet the meta-answer re: counterespionage shouldn't even arise (unless I suppose you believe the PC would likely know of such in-game tactics which the player didn't.)
Use the "fireball" analogy with your player if necessary. And avoid the wording of non-PF2 spells. The PF2 version seems straightforward.
The spell can put a sensor at its range where you want it. Like other spells, the caster has to know where the where is, but in this case doesn't need to see it at the time nor worry about walls.
IMO this player would very likely be able to do what they want it to do if they can get somebody to tell them where the king sleeps (or likely better, where he convenes with his cadre). This is assuming the player doesn't think the spell will answer questions for them to help them target, which is going beyond the language. (I can empathize with this because many fairy tales have similar targeting, but that's more like Scry than these spells.)
What the king does or has done to thwart such efforts is another matter.
Zapp wrote:
---
Shroudb: this spell is fairly unique in that it has no target. So I'm not finding your arguments very useful from a rules-lawyery angle. Within 500 feet doesn't say you need to follow corridors and angles and whatnot, And you don't need line of sight and you don't need line of effect.
Plus, the distance limit is seldom narratively interesting. Sure, if the palace grounds are very large you need to make a scenario out of getting close enough, but otherwise I don't find the solution to be "sorry, you're 530 feet away, the spell fails".
you can rule it howeer you want, but not a single spell that doesnt spell it out has a "narrative" targeting. You are not targeting "the enemy wizard", or "the Troll", you are targeting "this creature" and "that area".
Exactly the same way, with clairaudience, you are targeting "that area".
The fact that the spell is "unique" (as you put it), or as the rules would put it "specific" doesn't change that at all. The RAW is that when specific things change the general rule, they change it exactly how the specify and nothing else.
So, since it specifically says that you dont need line of sight, that's ALL it changes for targeting, nothing else. That's RAW.
while "43 degrees" may be modern, "There" is as ancient as human could point his fingers.
And that's how you target in every single spell that doesnt change tthis.
So, i can hardly see how it is not RAW and RAI to have the caster "pinpoint" the location.
And exactly because "x feet away towards exactly there" is in a medieval world much less accurate than the modern world with our established coordinate systems and gps and etc, it is infact limited by how precise the knowledge of the caster is compared to the location he is aiming for.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
