[3.5]Foresight VS trap the soul

[oxybe]

would the Foresight spell kick my character's spider senses into overdrive if someone is trying to give them a Trap the Soul trigger item? i think so but i would like a second opinion.

[Narazil]

Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell.
I'd say so, even though it doesn't specify you know what is causing it.


.. Well, if someone is about to hand you a 20,000 gp gem, and it kicks in, you might have an idea.

[oxybe]

out of character i know there is a trap the soul coming (the other PC admitted so OOC), in character i don't, but i do have foresight on my warlock at all times.

i was just wondering if i would get a warning that the object, a book of "legend lore" (wink wink nudge nudge magic item that the gem was used to make) and my warlock is building up a large library for himself, would trigger forsight or not.

[Tanaric]

Short answer: Yes.

[ericgrau]

"Your soul is about to be trapped in that gem. Don't pick it up."

[Narazil]

"Your soul is about to be trapped in that gem. Don't pick it up."
Well, it doesn't really say you know what's going to happen, just that you will be hurt and/or find yourself in danger. Like Spiderman's Spider Sense.

[sofawall]

Well, it doesn't really say you know what's going to happen, just that you will be hurt and/or find yourself in danger. Like Spiderman's Spider Sense.

It tells you how best to defend yourself. In this case, "Do not touch the gem" would be the appropriate warning.

[ericgrau]

You get both.

"Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself"

The DM is free to be vague while still describing the essentials, but IMO simple is best for a fast game. At his discretion, he could also say:

"That gem is bad ju ju. Don't touch it."

[Narazil]

Ah, sorry, my fault. Didn't see that line. :smallredface:

Yea, 'don't touch the book' is pretty solid.

[Lycanthromancer]

My response to this?

"Shatter."

[oxybe]

My response to this?

"Shatter."

i'm more of a eldrich blast/glaive it to kingdom come kinda guy.

[sofawall]

You get both.

"Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell. You are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself"

The DM is free to be vague while still describing the essentials, but IMO simple is best for a fast game. At his discretion, he could also say:

"That gem is bad ju ju. Don't touch it."

Well, that could just mean the spell says "****'s about to hit the fan. Also, don't touch the book."

[PhoenixRivers]

I generally go with the warning being:

"Danger! Pull your arm back!"

The gem/TtS trigger need not be referenced. After all, it only gives the best action to take, not the action to not take. "Don't touch the book" is something you don't do. Foresight gives you an idea of the best thing to do. Things that you don't do aren't really what it does.

Granted, a player could infer a "pull your arm back" every time he reached for the trigger item, and likely figure it out.

[Defiant]

The gem/TtS trigger need not be referenced. After all, it only gives the best action to take, not the action to not take. "Don't touch the book" is something you don't do. Foresight gives you an idea of the best thing to do. Things that you don't do aren't really what it does.

"Don't not touch the book" is also something you don't do. The best thing to do would be to "not touch the book".

:smallamused:

[PhoenixRivers]

"Don't not touch the book" is also something you don't do. The best thing to do would be to "not touch the book".

:smallamused:

Not doing something is NOT an action.
To not touch a book, you don't take ANY action.

And, not taking an action is not the same as taking an action.

Since the spell only refers to the best action that you take, it doesn't extend to actions you don't take.

All the semantic nonsense about double negatives (which, incidentally, are illegal syntax) won't change that.

The Foresight spell is proactive. It's not going to identify the source of danger. That's reading more into the spell than it does. If there's a fire trap around the corner, it's not going to say "don't walk around the corner".

Rather, right before you round the corner, it will give something like "get back!" The spell is designed to provide warnings on the time frame of dodging sword strikes. In other words, the action must be immediately threatening. "Don't touch the book" isn't. "pull your hand back" when you're reaching for it? Is.

[Demons_eye]

Not taking an action is taking an action. "You have 3 seconds to blow out the candles" if you don't blow them out (don't do anything) you have done some thing.

The abstinence of evidence is not the evidence of abstinence.

SAY WHAT AGAIN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k1sFpzLsyc)

Edit: Foul language and Samuel Jackson in the link above.

[Defiant]

Not doing something is NOT an action.
To not touch a book, you don't take ANY action.

And, not taking an action is not the same as taking an action.

Since the spell only refers to the best action that you take, it doesn't extend to actions you don't take.

All the semantic nonsense about double negatives (which, incidentally, are illegal syntax) won't change that.

The Foresight spell is proactive. It's not going to identify the source of danger. That's reading more into the spell than it does. If there's a fire trap around the corner, it's not going to say "don't walk around the corner".

Rather, right before you round the corner, it will give something like "get back!" The spell is designed to provide warnings on the time frame of dodging sword strikes. In other words, the action must be immediately threatening. "Don't touch the book" isn't. "pull your hand back" when you're reaching for it? Is.

I proceed towards the book.

Foresight: "Perform any action other than touching the book."

Foresight has functioned within the description of the spell, telling me what action to perform in order to save myself from harm.

[PhoenixRivers]

I proceed towards the book.

Foresight: "Perform any action other than touching the book."

Foresight has functioned within the description of the spell, telling me what action to perform in order to save myself from harm.

Incorrect. It provided information as to the source and nature of the danger, which is NOT listed in the description or effect of the spell.

When you empower divination spells to give information that they are not listed as providing, it's no different than empowering direct damage spells to do damage they're not listed as providing.

In other words, your argument is about as RAW as someone claiming his fireball does 10d6 fire damage and 30d6 untyped damage.

After all, when it does that, it does do 10d6 fire damage, so it's performing within the parameters of the spell, right?

Wrong. Getting an effect not listed in the description of the spell is a violation of what the spell does. The spell does not provide any information concerning the source of the threat. There's no listing in the spell that says it does.

Thus? Any possible event in which you ascribe the source of the danger in the spell, rather than the specific individual best course of action taken to avoid an immediate threat?

You are violating RAW. And possibly making babies cry.

EDIT: To clarify: When you "proceed towards the book", you aren't in danger.

Foresight: ...

When you attempt to touch/accept the book, then there is immediate danger.

Foresight: Pull back!

It doesn't give you a war and peace diatribe. It doesn't warn you against eating fatty foods, to protect you from a heart condition in a decade. The danger must be immediate, per the spell's description.

Walking by a book ain't enough.

On a side note: "Perform any action" is not a 'best course of actions'. It's a rather wide array of different actions. That is also not what the spell does.

The spell's description is not that complex. Simply do what it says, no more, no less, and you're fine.

Stop trying for 40d6 fireballs.

[oxybe]

thanks for the info. i figured it would probably give me a "pull back!" or "no touchy!" but i wanted a double check.

[Lysander]

The best action you could take is destroying the gem immediately without touching it, like Lycanthromancer suggested. That's probably what Foresight would tell you to do.

[Lycanthromancer]

The best action you could take is destroying the gem immediately without touching it, like Lycanthromancer suggested. That's probably what Foresight would tell you to do.Especially if the gem is half-white and half-red, and spherical.

You wouldn't want to be pokemon'd, would you?

[NEO|Phyte]

Is "avoid touching that book" an action?

[PhoenixRivers]

The best action you could take is destroying the gem immediately without touching it, like Lycanthromancer suggested. That's probably what Foresight would tell you to do.

Incorrect: The spell only gives you an idea of what action you should take to protect yourself [from the immediate danger it warns you about].

"destroying" something is not protecting yourself. The action should be defensive in nature only, as befitting "protect yourself".


Is "avoid touching that book" an action?

What action type would it be?

Move? Standard? Swift? None.

Not doing something is not an action. The spell gives you an idea of a proactive defensive action. It doesn't identify the source of the danger.

If you are fighting a dragon polymorphed into an ogre, it's not going to say, "duck the dragon's attack". Nor will it say "duck the ogre's attack". Both give insight to the attacker, and the spell does not do that.

It will say "Duck!"

[Lycanthromancer]

Incorrect: The spell only gives you an idea of what action you should take to protect yourself [from the immediate danger it warns you about].

"destroying" something is not protecting yourself. The action should be defensive in nature only, as befitting "protect yourself"."The best defense..." and all that.

[PhoenixRivers]

"The best defense..." and all that.

In that case, I submit that the best action will always be "Destroy everything other than yourself."

If the best defense is a good offense, then the best way to protect yourself is to destroy everything else. That somewhat mitigates the usefulness of the spell, as the answer will never change.

Are we quite done with semantics now? Pretty please?

Definition of Protect:
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger
There is no circumstance ever that "destroy a book" could be construed as any of the above.

[Milskidasith]

Definition of Protect:
There is no circumstance ever that "destroy a book" could be construed as any of the above.

Actually it can. In the same way destroying an enemy ammo station would protect you from their bullets, destroying an enemies magical artillery would protect you from being hit by it. Also, destroying everything would be pointless and self destructive; foresight would know that, say, mundane food isn't dangerous, and is in fact helpful.

[PhoenixRivers]

Actually it can. In the same way destroying an enemy ammo station would protect you from their bullets, destroying an enemies magical artillery would protect you from being hit by it. Also, destroying everything would be pointless and self destructive; foresight would know that, say, mundane food isn't dangerous, and is in fact helpful.

Foresight would not "know" anything. It's a spell. It has no knowledge modifier.

Foresight provides a method to protect yourself from an immediate impending danger.

The bullets that are sitting in an ammo dump are not an immediate impending danger.

Nor is a trap the soul trigger item that you are not about to touch.

It simply does not meet the qualifiers. As stated before. Foresight will not tell you to stop eating a greasy burger to avoid a heart attack in a decade.

If it's not an immediate threat, Foresight doesn't give two hoots.

The most effective method of protecting yourself from a book/item that will trap your soul if you touch it? Pull away. If you do that, you are 100% guaranteed to NOT be subject to the danger.

It meets the qualifiers for a defensive action. It meets the qualifiers for providing you with a general idea of the best action, rather than specific information on the nature of the threat. It meets all parts of the spell, and doesn't introduce new ones.

All the others rely on twisting the rules (and, in some cases, rewriting them) until they more resembled a strand of DNA than a book.

[Milskidasith]

Foresight would not "know" anything. It's a spell. It has no knowledge modifier.

Semantics. It's clearly capable of predicting the future; saying it knows things is simpler than repeating the description of the spell, and saying it gives the caster foresight of danger seems redundant.


Foresight provides a method to protect yourself from an immediate impending danger.

Read the spell. It merely says "impending" not "immediately impending." If you want to argue RAW, please know how it's W'd first.


If it's not an immediate threat, Foresight doesn't give two hoots.

In PhoenixRiver's "How I want it to be to argue my point" Foresight, sure. By RAW: No, any impending danger qualifies.

[PhoenixRivers]

Semantics. It's clearly capable of predicting the future; saying it knows things is simpler than repeating the description of the spell, and saying it gives the caster foresight of danger seems redundant.



Read the spell. It merely says "impending" not "immediately impending." If you want to argue RAW, please know how it's W'd first.

Dictionary, Impending:
im⋅pend⋅ing
  /ɪmˈpɛndɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-pen-ding] Show IPA
–adjective
1. about to happen; imminent.
If it is not about to happen? It's NOT impending. Period.

In PhoenixRiver's "How I want it to be to argue my point" Foresight, sure. By RAW: No, any impending danger qualifies.
And by RAW, you get a general idea of the action.

Identifying specific dangers is not a general idea. Under any possible interpretation of "general idea". Ever.

Unless you wish to argue that a "general idea" extends to:
"destroy that book. Yeah, the one on the table there. But no, don't touch it, that's bad. Also, there's a spike trap around it with filth fever, and a gaseous sleep poison that will trigger."

That's not general. That's specific. Specific is the exact opposite of general. Which means specific actions are the exact opposite of what the spell says to do.

Odd, that "how I want it to be" also happens to be "the printed text".

[Lysander]

Exactly how much information foresight gives you is up to DM discretion. I always imagined it operating like spider-sense, giving you a split second to react to danger and a good idea of what to do. Instead of actual instructions it could just be a very strong intuition that touching the book is a bad idea. Based on that intuition a caster might choose to zap the book, throw up a wall of force, teleport away, cast analyze dweomer for more information, or any of a million other logical reactions.

[Milskidasith]

Dictionary, Impending:
If it is not about to happen? It's NOT impending. Period.

Except "about" is relative. The enemy is "about" to attack us (three days from now). I'm "about" to hit the post button (as of typing this, a couple minutes). Touching the gem is and losing my soul is "about" to happen (less than a couple of seconds). On a galactic scale, relative to the rest of the universe, the sun is about to go out (a few billion years). It's "about" to be spring (a few weeks).

Tell me where I misused the word "about."



And by RAW, you get a general idea of the action.

Not disagreeing.


Identifying specific dangers is not a general idea. Under any possible interpretation of "general idea". Ever.

Specifics are not general because general things aren't specific. I wonder why you sound so angry about a simple case of begging the question/tautology (depending on your preference for what you want to call that fallacy.)


Unless you wish to argue that a "general idea" extends to:
"destroy that book. Yeah, the one on the table there. But no, don't touch it, that's bad. Also, there's a spike trap around it with filth fever, and a gaseous sleep poison that will trigger."


And a strawman! You're just burning through the fallacies today, aren't you! Here's a general example: Destroy that book without touching it. Bam, it's general, it protects you from the impending danger of Trap The Soul, and it doesn't say how to destroy it, what protections it has, or that you should avoid the traps on it.


That's not general. That's specific. Specific is the exact opposite of general. Which means specific actions are the exact opposite of what the spell says to do.

Back to the tautology. Your argument is a strawman fallacy with it's reasoning supported by a tautology.


Odd, that "how I want it to be" also happens to be "the printed text".

"Immediate Impending" /=/ "impending."

[PhoenixRivers]

Except "about" is relative. The enemy is "about" to attack us (three days from now). I'm "about" to hit the post button (as of typing this, a couple minutes). Touching the gem is and losing my soul is "about" to happen (less than a couple of seconds). On a galactic scale, relative to the rest of the universe, the sun is about to go out (a few billion years). It's "about" to be spring (a few weeks).
LOL. And you're criticizing me for semantics?


When another creature is the subject of the spell, you receive warnings about that creature. You must communicate what you learn to the other creature for the warning to be useful, and the creature can be caught unprepared in the absence of such a warning. Shouting a warning, yanking a person back, and even telepathically communicating (via an appropriate spell) can all be accomplished before some danger befalls the subject, provided you act on the warning without delay.
Now, if the warnings are only good if you act WITHOUT DELAY, that pretty much invalidates every one of the above pieces of semantic nonsense except the one that is "less than a couple seconds". All others allow delay. Incidentally?


im⋅me⋅di⋅ate⋅ly
  /ɪˈmidiɪtli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-mee-dee-it-lee] Show IPA
–adverb
1. without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once
Odd, that looks like the time frame you have to act on the warning.

Imagine that.


Specifics are not general because general things aren't specific. I wonder why you sound so angry about a simple case of begging the question/tautology (depending on your preference for what you want to call that fallacy.)Exactly. Specific and general are mutually exclusive. Thus, when you are specific, you are not general. When you give a specific "that book", you are no longer general (unless, of course, your character is a high ranking military official. Then, that has no bearing here.)


And a strawman! You're just burning through the fallacies today, aren't you! Here's a general example: Destroy that book without touching it. Bam, it's general, it protects you from the impending danger of Trap The Soul, and it doesn't say how to destroy it, what protections it has, or that you should avoid the traps on it.
Incorrect. "That book" is a specific. The only part that, in any way protects you is "without touching it", which is not an action. The only part that is an action is "destroy that book" which is not a protection. It is an attack (also known as an offensive combat action, in D&D parlance. Offensive /=/ Defensive.)

Premise 1) Specifics are not general, by definition.
Premise 2) When you give specifics, you are doing the opposite of being general.
Premise 3) The spell instructs you to provide a general idea.
Conclusion: When you provide specifics, you are not doing what the spell instructs you to.
Premise 4) You provided specifics ("that book").
Conclusion: You are not doing what the spell instructs you to.


"Immediate Impending" /=/ "impending."
If you can delay (as in, not act immediately) on the information, the spell doesn't provide it. The spell only provides information that you must act on without delay (if it is to be useful). It only provides information that is useful if acted on without delay.

That is what the spell says. Black and white. Any attempt to argue otherwise, even if you invoke the dreaded (and horribly misused) words "fallacy" and "strawman"? Is against RAW. Period.

EDIT: And, incidentally? If you want to argue that the above and below warnings are different, and it clearly means specific best courses of action over general ideas, and information about events a millennia away? I'm going to make a heck of a lot of LOL's to myself at the irony of you using "fallacy" and "semantics" with a straight face, and leave. After all, at that point, I doubt I can do much more to make your argument seem silly than that view.

[Milskidasith]

LOL. And you're criticizing me for semantics?

Seeing as your argument was predicated on semantics, yes. Your entire argument was based on your definitions of some words, when "about" can, in fact, refer to different things.


Now, if the warnings are only good if you act WITHOUT DELAY, that pretty much invalidates every one of the above pieces of semantic nonsense except the one that is "less than a couple seconds". All others allow delay. Incidentally?

Which, by the way, is if you use it on somebody else, not on yourself.


Exactly. When you give a specific "that book", you are no longer general (unless, of course, your character is a high ranking military official. Then, that has no bearing here.)


This is a matter of opinion; when you're about to touch a book, referring to that book as dangerous is not all that specific to me, while it is to you. You're arguing over an opinion here.


Incorrect. "That book" is a specific. The only part that, in any way protects you is "without touching it", which is not an action. The only part that is an action is "destroy that book" which is not a protection. It is an attack (also known as an offensive combat action, in D&D parlance. Offensive /=/ Defensive.)

Destroying the book protects you. The best defense is a good offense.


Premise 1) Specifics are not general, by definition.
Premise 2) When you give specifics, you are doing the opposite of being general.
Premise 3) The spell instructs you to provide a general idea.
Conclusion: When you provide specifics, you are not doing what the spell instructs you to.
Premise 4) You provided specifics ("that book").
Conclusion: You are not doing what the spell instructs you to.


Premise 4 is an opinion, so your conclusion is invalid. You find "that book" to be specific. I don't.


If you can delay (as in, not act immediately) on the information, the spell doesn't provide it. The spell only provides information that you must act on without delay (if it is to be useful). It only provides information that is useful if acted on without delay.

For the buff for your allies, sure. For you, it makes no mention of that.


That is what the spell says. Black and white. Any attempt to argue otherwise, even if you invoke the dreaded (and horribly misused) words "fallacy" and "strawman"? Is against RAW. Period.


It's only RAW for the allied buff, not yourself. You can't substitute things in and call it an argument.

[PhoenixRivers]

Seeing as your argument was predicated on semantics, yes. Your entire argument was based on your definitions of some words, when "about" can, in fact, refer to different things.No, my entire argument was based on the meanings of the words, when taken in context. Where I come from, that's known as "interpreting".


Which, by the way, is if you use it on somebody else, not on yourself.And the warnings aren't redefined as acting differently. Are you really going to argue that Foresight will give you information on dangers that aren't about to happen? Really? REALLY?


This is a matter of opinion; when you're about to touch a book, referring to that book as dangerous is not all that specific to me, while it is to you. You're arguing over an opinion here.Are you claiming it refers to a specific book? Then it's specific. There's not many other meanings for the word.

In addition, referring to that book as dangerous, even if general, is not what the spell does. Show me one part of that spell, anywhere, that states that this divination tells you what the danger is. One part, that supports this as RAW.

It's not there. And your view is no more RAW than pretending that damage spells get a couple extra d6.


Destroying the book protects you. The best defense is a good offense.Not touching the book is 100% effective. "The best defense is a good offense" is not truth.

It is opinion. It is a statement saying that defensive preparations aren't as effective as offensive strikes. It doesn't mean that offense = defense. They are antonyms. They mean the opposite. And basing your entire argument on an unproven statement that directly contradicts the meaning of the words? More than a little fallacious, champ.


Premise 4 is an opinion, so your conclusion is invalid. You find "that book" to be specific. I don't.


spe⋅cif⋅ic  /spɪˈsɪfɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spi-sif-ik] Show IPA
–adjective 1. having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definiteIf you are specifying one book, so that the meaning is conferred to one and one only, that is specific. That is the definition. That is not opinion. That is fact.


For the buff for your allies, sure. For you, it makes no mention of that.Guess what else it makes no mention of?

DEFINING THE DANGER. And yet, you seem to feel you can insert that in, and make it RAW by wishing it. DIVINATIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.


It's only RAW for the allied buff, not yourself. You can't substitute things in and call it an argument.Just like you can't introduce elements of a spell that don't exist. Identifying the threat is doing exactly that.

In other words, the spell states a general idea of an action you may take to protect yourself. It does not tell you that it identifies the source of the danger.

So let's take the two statements:
"Get back" - effectively protects you, does not cause the spell do give information it's not listed to provide.

"Destroy that book on the table without touching it" - Actively removes a specific threat in a non-protective manner, and causes the spell to provide information not authorized it in its description.

So, you're using "defend" to mean "attack" using an unproven statement that twists the meaning of the english language until it screams and begs for the sweet release of death... Then compounding it by criticizing any attempt to interpret the context of the spell as "makes no mention of that, so it can't happen", while conveniently ignoring that it "makes no mention" of identifying the threat, which your entire statement relies on.

Your argument defeats itself.

Luckily, you have to find someone else who ascribes to this crazy theory before it's of any use to you. And if you're DMing, well, instruct your players to thank you. And the next time they cast an Augury, make sure to outline the entire plot of the adventure. After all, the spell doesn't say it doesn't do that, and divinations in your world can obviously ignore the text of what they're supposed to do, to go beyond that.

[Defiant]

Incorrect. It provided information as to the source and nature of the danger, which is NOT listed in the description or effect of the spell.

The fact that it provided information as to the source and nature of the danger is irrelevant. The description does not list the spell as providing such information, but it doesn't forbid it either. If the best action to protect oneself reveals the source and nature of the danger, then the spell is still functioning within its parameters.


When you empower divination spells to give information that they are not listed as providing, it's no different than empowering direct damage spells to do damage they're not listed as providing.

In other words, your argument is about as RAW as someone claiming his fireball does 10d6 fire damage and 30d6 untyped damage.

Cute.


After all, when it does that, it does do 10d6 fire damage, so it's performing within the parameters of the spell, right?

Wrong. Getting an effect not listed in the description of the spell is a violation of what the spell does. The spell does not provide any information concerning the source of the threat. There's no listing in the spell that says it does.

Actually, getting an effect not listed in the description of a spell is not a violation of what the spell does, as long as the spell functions within the given parameters. After all, spells such as clairvoyance don't specifically say that we can see Dwarves... so maybe we can't?


Thus? Any possible event in which you ascribe the source of the danger in the spell, rather than the specific individual best course of action taken to avoid an immediate threat?

The specific individual best course of action is to perform "any other action that touching the book". This is an action. Whether this gives away information on the source of the danger is irrelevant.


On a side note: "Perform any action" is not a 'best course of actions'. It's a rather wide array of different actions. That is also not what the spell does.

"Perform any action" is a singular action. In this case, "perform any action other than touching the book" is the best course of action to avoid getting hurt by the damage that would be caused by touching the book.

t - is an action that would cause damage
any(not(t)) - is an action, which is the best way to avoid the damage caused by t

[PhoenixRivers]

The fact that it provided information as to the source and nature of the danger is irrelevant. The description does not list the spell as providing such information, but it doesn't forbid it either. If the best action to protect oneself reveals the source and nature of the danger, then the spell is still functioning within its parameters.No. The spell is then giving more information than it states it gives. In other words? You're cheating.


Actually, getting an effect not listed in the description of a spell is not a violation of what the spell does, as long as the spell functions within the given parameters. After all, spells such as clairvoyance don't specifically say that we can see Dwarves... so maybe we can't?I'm not sure even where to begin here.

Clairvoyance/Clairaudience lets you see or hear around a sensor as if you were there, with a few outlined exceptions (if totally dark, you can see for 10 feet, and no magical senses through the sensor). So, if you cannot normally see Dwarves, you're absolutely right. It would not allow you to. What it DOES do, however, is extend your natural vision to another location.


The specific individual best course of action is to perform "any other action that touching the book". This is an action. Whether this gives away information on the source of the danger is irrelevant.Specific. Thank you. The spell only gives you a general idea of the best protective action. Not a specific best course of action.

Incidentally, an individual action is not a list of parameters with billions of possible actions in it.


"Perform any action" is a singular action. In this case, "perform any action other than touching the book" is the best course of action to avoid getting hurt by the damage that would be caused by touching the book.No, "Move forward" is an action. "Do anything" is not an individual action. It's all possible actions. I think you have some confusion as to what "individual" means. When those snack cakes you get are "individually wrapped"? There's only one to a package. When two people have individual appointments? They each have one. The common factor? Individual Action = One action. Not a blanket list of all possible actions.


t - is an action that would cause damage
any(not(t)) - is an action, which is the best way to avoid the damage caused by t
Any(not(t)) - is a formula. A list of parameters. It may yield any number of individual actions, but it is not an action.

Let's stop arguing semantics for a moment, PLEASE, and all think.

Some are saying the best defense is a good offense.
What is a good offense? I submit it's the use of offensive abilities in a manner that removes potential threats in the most efficient manner possible.

Let's look at the danger here.

It's a book. Not a vampire book. Not a flying book. Not an exploding book. Just a book. The entirety of its offensive potential is outlined below.

Ex: Sit on a flat surface.

That's it. You must proactively do something for it to be able to hurt you.
Therefore? It's only a danger when you're about to proactively touch it.
In this case, let's look at efficiency in avoiding the threat.

1: "Get back!" or "Pull away". -If acted on, ends the danger. It's a general idea, with a 100% success rate of protecting you if acted on.

2: "Do anything other than touch that book". - If acted on, ends the danger. It also has a 100% success rate. It does provide specifics, however, which the spell does not call for, and which are not necessary (the above is equally effective, maintains the parameters of the spell, and doesn't go beyond them)

3: "Smite the book without touching it". -If acted on, ends the danger. Has a 100% success rate. It also provides specifics. It further uses unnecessary combat resources (after all, if you're not grabbing it, there's no danger to you. Acting beyond that is inefficient and wasteful of offensive ability.)

In other words? (1) follows everything the spell does without acting outside the boundaries of the spell.

(2) follows everything the spell does, and gives the caster extra specifics that he's not (by the text of the spell) entitled to.

(3) uses a rather liberal meaning of defense based on a non-proven statement, and is wasteful of offensive ability, in addition to having all the flaws inherent in (2).

We're talking about justifying flamestrikes on something which can be no more threatening than having clashing colors on its cover.

We're talking about passing scry information out like candy. You'd be surprised how easy it can be to keep casters mostly in check by simply doing what the spells say, rather than tossing in a gift bag of extras with every cast.

[Noodles2375]

I almost fell out of my chair at the spoiler. Good Job!

You are completely right about controlling the flow of scry information also.

And on top of that if I had a foresight up in a hallway with a pit trap and the foresight told me "blow up the floor and walls" instead of "stop moving forward" as I approached the trap, I'd be pretty annoyed.

[Defiant]

No. The spell is then giving more information than it states it gives. In other words? You're cheating.
I'm not sure even where to begin here.

Incorrect. The spell is giving you the information it states it gives. If from this information, you extrapolate additional information, the spell has still functioned within its parameters.

Foresight telling you "pull back" when you're about to touch the book is no more a violation of your random "no extra information clause" than "perform any action other than touching the book". "Pull back" has implied to you that the source of danger is from the book you're about to touch and violates your own RAW as much as "any other action" does.

Foresight: "Pull back"
Player: "Hmm... if foresight told me to pull back as I was about to touch that book, then that book must be a source of danger!"
Foresight has illegally given more information than allowed.

Foresight: "Perform any action other than touching the book"
Player: "Hmm... the logically the book must be a source of danger."
...

What you suggest with foresight would nullify its own existence, simply because of your arbitrary rule of "cannot give more information than specifically described in the spell while receiving the information specifically described in the spell".


Clairvoyance/Clairaudience lets you see or hear around a sensor as if you were there, with a few outlined exceptions (if totally dark, you can see for 10 feet, and no magical senses through the sensor). So, if you cannot normally see Dwarves, you're absolutely right. It would not allow you to. What it DOES do, however, is extend your natural vision to another location.

Exactly. Nowhere in the spell description does it state that you can see Dwarves.

You are assuming that through its function of extending your eyesight sense through the sensor, you can see Dwarves, even though nowhere in the spell description does it specify that you can see Dwarves. I.e. with your train of logic, by RAW, Clairvoyance would never allow someone to see Dwarves, since it would be providing them additional information that is not listed in the spell description, even though it's providing this information through the function of the spell (extend eyesight), just like Foresight would provide the information of the source of danger through the function of the spell (identify best course of action).

This is similar to my assumption that through Foresight's function of providing you the information of the best course of action, you can receive information as to the source of danger.


Specific. Thank you. The spell only gives you a general idea of the best protective action. Not a specific best course of action.

The specific and the general best course of action is to "perform any action other than touching the book".

The spell did not provide information as to the source of danger, although a player might be able to logically deduce it.


Incidentally, an individual action is not a list of parameters with billions of possible actions in it.
No, "Move forward" is an action. "Do anything" is not an individual action. It's all possible actions. I think you have some confusion as to what "individual" means. When those snack cakes you get are "individually wrapped"? There's only one to a package. When two people have individual appointments? They each have one. The common factor? Individual Action = One action. Not a blanket list of all possible actions.

Actually, a list of parameters with billions of possible actions in it within a formula that forces it down to one action, is one action.

5 is a number
86 is a number
any(3, 4, 5, 8) is a number
any(not(2)) is a number


Any(not(t)) - is a formula. A list of parameters. It may yield any number of individual actions, but it is not an action.

It is a formula. It is a "list of parameters" (though I'm pretty sure it's just one or two parameters, whatever it doesn't matter). It is an action. These are not mutually exclusive.


Let's stop arguing semantics for a moment, PLEASE, and all think.

As you wish. Here's how I see it:

"Pull back"
"Drop prone"
"Do a dance"
"Head 15.8km in a North 38 degrees Westerly direction at a rate of 33 km per hour"
"Immediately touch your nose with your right hand and touch your hip with your left hand while hopping away singing"

All equally best protect you from the damage caused by the book. So foresight lets you know of the best action to do to protect yourself. What would it tell you? They are all equally valid - they all lead to you not touching the book (after all, it prevents impending danger, rather than long-term possibilities). So would you roll randomly out of these possibilities? You can't. They're infinite.

Why are you arbitrarily saying "pull back" is the best course of action when clearly "immediately run in the opposite direction" would be a likewise best course of action? Or maybe "immediately teleport to your safe place"?


Some are saying the best defense is a good offense.
What is a good offense? I submit it's the use of offensive abilities in a manner that removes potential threats in the most efficient manner possible.

Let's look at the danger here.

It's a book. Not a vampire book. Not a flying book. Not an exploding book. Just a book. The entirety of its offensive potential is outlined below.

Ex: Sit on a flat surface.

That's it. You must proactively do something for it to be able to hurt you.
Therefore? It's only a danger when you're about to proactively touch it.
In this case, let's look at efficiency in avoiding the threat.

1: "Get back!" or "Pull away". -If acted on, ends the danger. It's a general idea, with a 100% success rate of protecting you if acted on.

So does "teleport to your safe place", "run in a northwesterly direction for approximately 50km", and so on. These have 100% success rates. Why should the spell say "pull away" when it can say an infinite possibility of things? Shouldn't that be determined randomly?


2: "Do anything other than touch that book". - If acted on, ends the danger. It also has a 100% success rate. It does provide specifics, however, which the spell does not call for, and which are not necessary (the above is equally effective, maintains the parameters of the spell, and doesn't go beyond them)

How does this go beyond the parameters of the spell? It does not provide any specifics more than "pull back" does.

"Do anything other than touch that book" does not tell you that the source of danger is the book. It simply tells you the course of action to take to protect yourself. You'd have to logically deduce that the book might be the source of danger, given that warning, as the spell does not tell you the source of danger.


3: "Smite the book without touching it". -If acted on, ends the danger. Has a 100% success rate. It also provides specifics. It further uses unnecessary combat resources (after all, if you're not grabbing it, there's no danger to you. Acting beyond that is inefficient and wasteful of offensive ability.)

The spell does not say "gives a vague idea of the best course of action". If through providing the information, the spell provides "specifics", then it's still acting within its parameters.

If through providing the information, the spell ends up doing something that isn't listed in the description, such as "imply the source of danger", it's not doing anything more wrong than Clairvoyance providing you sight, and ending up doing something that isn't listed in the description, such as "see Dwarves".

Furthermore, where in the spell does it specify that Foresight gives you the most efficient or the least-offensive-ability-using method? "Pull away" and "wipe the area around you in a 50 km radius off the face of the Earth" are both going to prevent you from harm and operate within what the spell says.


In other words? (1) follows everything the spell does without acting outside the boundaries of the spell.

As does infinite other possibilities, each no more or less valid than (1).


(2) follows everything the spell does, and gives the caster extra specifics that he's not (by the text of the spell) entitled to.

Two angles (and if I'm not allowed to have two equally-valid angles, just choose the one you want):

A) How does it give the caster extra specifics? "Perform any other action than touching the book" just provides information on how to go about best defending yourself. Just because any person with an intelligence of 3 could logically deduce that it must mean the book is a source of danger doesn't mean that the spell has identified the source of danger, no more than "pull back" would provide you information (that you're apparently not entitled to) that what you're about to do or touch is a source of danger.

B) If the caster can't be given extra information that isn't covered by the spell description through the information given as part of the spell description (especially when this information given is impossible to provide without also providing "untyped" information), then likewise scrying and clairvoyance does not give you the ability to see Dwarves, since nowhere in the spell description does it state that you can see Dwarves.


(3) uses a rather liberal meaning of defense based on a non-proven statement, and is wasteful of offensive ability, in addition to having all the flaws inherent in (2).

I don't know this "defense/offense" argument since I didn't particularly pay attention to your dialogue with Milsk. But as I said before, the wastefulness of offensive ability is irrelevant since nowhere in the spell description does it specify the efficient use of resources.

[Lysander]

I think we're overthinking this really. Personally I think foresight wouldn't recommend anything specific. The DM would just tell the player: "Your foresight spell strongly warns you against touching the book", and then the character could draw their own conclusions and form their own plans from that valuable piece of information.

It's kind of how a paladin's Detect Evil doesn't say "That man is evil! Arrest him!" It simply informs the paladin of the person's alignment, and then a straightforward plan like making an arrest or questioning him comes naturally from that.

This makes it a roleplaying question really. What does your wizard when informed of a threat? Attack, defend, or flee?

[Xenogears]

IAs you wish. Here's how I see it:

"Pull back"
"Drop prone"
"Do a dance"
"Head 15.8km in a North 38 degrees Westerly direction at a rate of 33 km per hour"
"Immediately touch your nose with your right hand and touch your hip with your left hand while hopping away singing"

All equally best protect you from the damage caused by the book. So foresight lets you know of the best action to do to protect yourself. What would it tell you? They are all equally valid - they all lead to you not touching the book (after all, it prevents impending danger, rather than long-term possibilities). So would you roll randomly out of these possibilities? You can't. They're infinite.

"Kill yourself"
"Sell your soul to Asmodeus"
"Chant Hastur, Hastur, Hastur"
All these fall under "any action other than touching the book" but clearly cause more danger rather than less.

Also "Pull back" might make you think the danger was the person giving you the book, a sniper about to shoot your hand, or any number of options. Sure the danger being the book is the most likely one but not the only one.

Edit:
The abstinence of evidence is not the evidence of abstinence.

Why is your evidence not having sex anyway?

[lesser_minion]

The DM shouldn't allow you to 'accept' something without actually doing anything, but if he does then Foresight isn't going to help you. Otherwise, you should be OK.

The spell gives you a "general idea" of what action you might take to defend yourself. 'avoid the book' fits the bill, IMO.

I presume you keep a Mind Blank on hand as well, because you can accept the item as a result of a magical compulsion.

[ericgrau]

I think the debate is much longer than the matter deserves. How about you just leave it up to the DM? Specifically, the DM says two things:

1. "Instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell". The DM may decide anything from "something bad is about to happen" to "it will trap you soul".

2. "In addition, the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself". The DM may give any action in the world that "best" keeps your soul from being trapped. Maybe "don't touch it" or "leave this place" or "smash the gem" (or book). He may be as general in his description as he likes.

[Parra]

Foresight: "Perform any action other than touching the book"


If your being silly then this could be interpreted as "drop your pants instead of touching the book".

Strictly speaking dropping your pants counts as "any other action" but if that was the instruction given by Foresight then it would lead to rather confusing deductions.

While it does prevent you from touching the book, its hardly the best way to go about it.

[Milskidasith]

I'd like to add not touching the book doesn't imply the book is specifically trapped; it could protect you from a table collapsing on your foot, a crazed book thief attacking you for it, or the fact you forgot you were holding the charge on a touch spell and just destroyed a stronger wizards spare spellbook.

[Lysander]

That gives me an idea to homebrew a new spell:

Foolsight
Level: Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal or touch
Target: See text
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: None or Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No or Yes (harmless)

This spell functions as Foresight, except instead of recommending the best possible method of protecting yourself from whatever danger it detects, it recommends the silliest possible course of action. Its advice may be overly elaborate, unnecessarily difficult or embarrassing, or inexplicably weird. However silly it makes you look, following its advice still protects you if not your dignity.

[lesser_minion]

I'd like to add not touching the book doesn't imply the book is specifically trapped; it could protect you from a table collapsing on your foot, a crazed book thief attacking you for it, or the fact you forgot you were holding the charge on a touch spell and just destroyed a stronger wizards spare spellbook.

I suspect that the spell would say "reject the book", since the danger is "accepting" the trapped object.