Does V make a point?

[Kaeso]

Hey guys,

I'm sure you've just read the newest chapter of OotS. If not, well, click to my left. Do it, you know you wanna :smallamused:.

Anyway, in it V states that prepared spell casters can be weak because they're unable to perfectly prepare for everything. Does V, assuming that the average wizard player is somewhat adept at optimisation when it comes to spell selection, have a point or is the wizard spell list so strong that it does not even matter?

[Boci]

A lot depends on the world, or more importantly the creatures in it, and how much divination BS your Dm will let you get away. Generally though, covering all your bases is very hard for a wizard, but you can cover quite a few. And you do have party members.

[Mystic Muse]

Actually, he says that it's difficult for them to be prepared for every possible situation, not that they're unable to. It is possible to be prepared for every possible situation, but it takes a lot of game breaking to do so.

[Kaeso]

A lot depends on the world, or more importantly the creatures in it, and how much divination BS your Dm will let you get away. Generally though, covering all your bases is very hard for a wizard, but you can cover quite a few. And you do have party members.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the DM is sane ie. he won't tell you every single detail when you cast a divination spell, only what's reasonable.

[LaughingRogue]

Hey guys,

I'm sure you've just read the newest chapter of OotS. If not, well, click to my left. Do it, you know you wanna :smallamused:.

Anyway, in it V states that prepared spell casters can be weak because they're unable to perfectly prepare for everything. Does V, assuming that the average wizard player is somewhat adept at optimisation when it comes to spell selection, have a point or is the wizard spell list so strong that it does not even matter?

Both ---> There will come times no matter how good you've made your list that you say "Damn I wish I had X prepared" (even as a joke) , and that gives credence to the line of thinking ... but overall the wizard spell list is so strong that it doesn't 'really' matter... (if that makes sense)

[Rogue Shadows]

V's point seems to be, "Wizards can't do everything at once, that's why we join a party."

This is a valid point.

However, it was partially invalidated by the very way V solved it - by using magic. The problem with wizards is that even though they can't do everything at once, they will always have more options than anyone else (except other full spellcasters) which can potentially negate their weaknesses.

Power Attack, for example, is useful only if you want to hit something. Dominate Person? You could theoretically get through an entire game without ever needing to prepare any other spell, except maybe Dominate Monster for those annoying nonhumanoids.

[JaronK]

Well, the issue is that V's not very creative with the spells, and is being reactive, not proactive.

In reactive play, you walk into the dungeon, and then you see what jumps out at you. Now you try to use the spells you've prepared to deal with that. This is the sort of play that was generally play tested (in fact, it was reactive blasting play). For this, you need flexible and effective spells, and you can be decent.

But Wizards shine best when they're proactive. Instead of choosing spells based on an educated guess at what will happen (sometimes resulting in guessing wrong), you decide what you want to do and pick spells to get it done. For example, I might decide to use those corpses from yesterday and cast Animate Dead, thus getting a legion of the dead. I know that's the right spell because I knew what I wanted to do when I memorized it. Likewise, if I decide it's time to take out that dragon I don't like, I might stock up with Shivering Touch and Celerity and Spectral Hand along with a nice teleport, so I can pop in next to him and take him down in the surprise round like a proper Wizard should. Or I could memorize appropriate spells and just build a nice castle. Or maybe I'd memorize Planar Binding and appropriate spells for safety in that operation (including divinations to avoid being screwed over) and summon Efreetis for endless wealth. Either way, instead of just kicking in the door, I'm choosing in advance what I'm going to do, and I pick my spells accordingly.

If V had been playing proactively, when that enemy Wizard showed up a bunch of V's reanimated Skeletal Storm Giants with bows would have opened up and destroyed him while the dead corpses of previously slain enemies (including casters) would have been Animated Dread Warriors who also attacked, and meanwhile it turns out the V that was attacked was just a Simacrulum moved into a V shaped statue via Haunt Shift (using the spell in SpC that makes someone count as undead temporarily), hardened magically to be nearly invincible, with a spellbook full of nothing but Explosive Runes in case the enemy Wizard actually won. Meanwhile the real V would be sitting back at home with the spouse and kids enjoying the wealth they'd obtained by playing around with Efreeti wish loops.

And the spells V actually had prepared that day would have been irrelevant.

JaronK

[Boci]

V's point seems to be, "Wizards can't do everything at once, that's why we join a party."

This is a valid point.

However, it was partially invalidated by the very way V solved it - by using magic.

This actually shows the skill behind the characters of the Giant. V made a valid point about her enemy's, who was a wizard, weakness, whilst cleverly minmizing the implications that logically the same would apply to herself, since she too is a wizard.

Kinda fits her character doesn't it?

[Rogue Shadows]

snip

Oh, also, this. Append this to my previous post.

[Retech]

Yeah, I was pointing out to my friend that spellcasters were infinitely more versatile than martial types, to which he replied that Vaarsuvius seems to be rather weak in the comic.

Then I noted that Vaarsuvius seems to use chain lightning and fireball on a regular basis and shouldn't be used as an example.

If he was any kind of decent wizard (say he frequented the playground), then he probably would've been able to defeat Xykon and end the strip a few hundred comics ago. (Although I would hate to see that happen :smallbiggrin:)

[tyckspoon]

However, it was partially invalidated by the very way V solved it - by using magic. The problem with wizards is that even though they can't do everything at once, they will always have more options than anyone else (except other full spellcasters) which can potentially negate their weaknesses.

And of course magic could solve the problem for Zz as well, except that he apparently overspecialized his spells to fight against V to a crippling degree. The kobold's bolts cannot be doing terribly much damage (they're hand crossbows, he's not getting Sneak Attack, Zz has eaten 7 of them without looking excessively wounded, they're not showing any energy-enhancement effects when they hit..) A simple Wind Wall/Protection From Arrows/Stone Skin would make them a non-issue, and they should have been something Zz had prepared in case his Flesh to Stone failed on Haley and he had to deal with her some other way. Or just normal defensive spells.. Blur? Mirror Image? Blink? All useful against both weapons and touch attacks, and he should know V is really fond of Disintegrate.

[magic9mushroom]

The issue is divinations, which allow wizards to know what they'll be facing, hence the term "scry-and-die".

It does also depend on how much extreme cheese you're willing to use (*cough*Uncanny Forethought*cough*)

Outside of those, prepared casting isn't so supremely overpowered.

[Boci]

And of course magic could solve the problem for Zz as well, except that he apparently overspecialized his spells to fight against V to a crippling degree. The kobold's bolts cannot be doing terribly much damage (they're hand crossbows, he's not getting Sneak Attack, Zz has eaten 7 of them without looking excessively wounded, they're not showing any energy-enhancement effects when they hit..) A simple Wind Wall/Protection From Arrows/Stone Skin would make them a non-issue, and they should have been something Zz had prepared in case his Flesh to Stone failed on Haley and he had to deal with her some other way. Or just normal defensive spells.. Blur? Mirror Image? Blink? All useful against both weapons and touch attacks, and he should know V is really fond of Disintegrate.

Plus there's the fact of why hasn't he tried dispelling the domination? If his spells are tailor made to fight V, then dispel magic has to be there somewhere.

[magic9mushroom]

Plus there's the fact of why hasn't he tried dispelling the domination? If his spells are tailor made to fight V, then dispel magic has to be there somewhere.

He tried Break Enchantment, and Zzt'dri is largely relying on his SR to negate V's magic.

[Boci]

He tried Break Enchantment,

Yeah. Kinda ironic given the 1 minute casting time.


and Zzt'dri is largely relying on his SR to negate V's magic.

Why does that negate the need for dispel magic when fighting a wizard?

[Cadian 9th]

Well.

Two feats for a wizard make him have ridiculous flexibility: Spell Mastery and Uncanny Forethrought.

At 5th level, Spontaneous Divination and Versatile Spellcaster pretty much make a wizard entirely spontaneous if you're not a buff mancer.

Finally, spells such as Shadow Conjuration/Evocation, wish and miracle, and Spell Matrix, Rary's nemonic Enhancer, Anyspell and more let you manipulate your spells available. Failing that, load up on summons for spellcasting creatures. It works a lot.

To answer the OP's question proper, not really - however V seems to be a nice player, and only uses the PHB for hir spells.

[FMArthur]

V's still an Evocation specialist, sadly. That's not sad 'because Evocation sucks', it's just that it seems like his/her newfound focus in spellcasting is more based on finesse than explosions now. V's blasting has been fairly ineffective lately. Maybe s/he'll make use of retraining, which would be the most appropriate in the situation but least likely due to using less iconic material.

[Person_Man]

I think the battle between V and Z is fun from a story perspective, but entirely unrealistic from a mechanical perspective. They're ECL 14ish+. Combat would be over on the first round, won by whoever won Initiative (or perhaps by whoever had the better Contingency and similar spells). V and Z have each selected cruddy spells.

Also, you assume that the Wizards only have spells. They also have magic items, scrolls, wands, etc.

[MrRigger]

There's also that we're not sure if rules for retraining exist in the Giant's world. Apparently Redcloak spent a fair amount of time just figuring out if they were using Psionics or not, much less retraining rules. I think that it's fair to say (given the Giant's decision not to convert to 4th edition when it came out was to retain the feel of the story) that V will not be retraining hir spellcasting specialty anytime soon. Especially considering there is a time limit on the storyline. They have to beat Xykon to the next gate (wait, what gate?).

And while JaronK's description of what V should have been doing is certainly satisfying, it's not really possible. V is an Evoker who barred Conjuration and Necromancy (heart attack inducing as it may be to some on the board), and so V couldn't have reanimated any Storm Giants or used Animate Dread Warrior on previously slain enemies (as those are Necromancy spells), or abused Planar Binding for Efreet loops (as that's a Conjuration effect).

MrRigger

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You know, for one who has specialized in Evocation, why has V never once used Contingency? I'd have figured that would be 'first you cast Contingency, then you put on your undies and roll out of bed' on the list of things to do when you wake up...

[gkathellar]

What V suggests is mostly that wizard-duels are like any other strategic encounter, where sometimes you have to field an unorthodox, bass-ackward approach to take your opponent down.

This is entirely reasonable in actual D&D (although more so at mid-levels than high levels).

[Marnath]

And while JaronK's description of what V should have been doing is certainly satisfying, it's not really possible. V is an Evoker who barred Conjuration and Necromancy (heart attack inducing as it may be to some on the board), and so V couldn't have reanimated any Storm Giants or used Animate Dread Warrior on previously slain enemies (as those are Necromancy spells), or abused Planar Binding for Efreet loops (as that's a Conjuration effect).

MrRigger

There's also the point that if people in OoTSland optimized that much, Xykon would have killed them a long time ago. Sorceror might be tier 2, but a high level epic lich vs a mid level party isn't very fair.

[Shadowknight12]

Whether V makes a point or not depends on the setting. In some settings, there IS no setting, because the Tier 1s obliterated it long ago.

[MrRigger]

I think V hasn't used Contingency for a number of reasons. One, despite being an Evocation spell, it doesn't really fit the mold of V's usual spells (big flashy blasting). For a long time, V didn't do much thinking ahead (not a good thing for a prepared caster), so Contingency doesn't really fit. Two, V is rather verbose. She/He could have worded the Contingency in such a way that it's nearly impossible to activate. Three, you can only have one Contingency active at a time (via the spell, and there's no indication that V has Craft Contingent Spell). It may just be a Contingency for a situation that hasn't come up yet. Four, Contingency is hell on a storyline. It's why V doesn't have access to Teleport, it would create entirely too many plot holes. Sure, it's a bit of a meta reason for no Contingencies, but it's still valid.

MrRigger

[navar100]

She is absolutely correct. Some might argue that the mere fact she was able to Dominate the kobold to use his arrows contradicts her point, but that was a desperation ploy by author fiat. No wizard player always has the exact spell needed at the appropriate time.

People can yell and scream Gate, Time Stop, and Celerity all they want. They can get hysterical over Rope Trick, Grease, Scry & Teleport. They get so apopleptic about Force Cage, Sleep, Knock, and Color Spray. All that shouting is irrelevant. Spells are powerful and can do nifty things. That's the whole point. However, the wizard is only absolutely perfect in every way on paper. In reality, the wizard player does not know every spell. Not every spell he does know did he prepare. He does not have every scroll, wand, or staff for spells he doesn't have. In addition, he can so fail to overcome spell resistance from time to time. Bad guys certainly do make their saving throws from time to time. Wizards do not pwn the game as the Tier 1 Bashers would have you believe.

[Rogue Shadows]

In reality, the wizard player does not know every spell. Not every spell he does know did he prepare.

In reality, he doesn't need to know every spell, though. Generally at each spell level there are only one or two spells that the wizard needs to have prepared to be able to break the game in half...and most of them are available in the PHB...

[Larpus]

Similarly, shkle could just not know Contingency, seeing shkler love for flashy blasty spells, it's fair to assume a newbish mindset, which wouldn't really look into "possibility" spells and have a greater lust for the next bigger fireball.

Anyway, it is actually some sort of common ground for Wizards to think they're the best thing since the world started to exist, and as such many times whenever there are two casters standing on opposite sides they'll ignore everyone else to face each other, to which the Rogue can rather easily sneak behind one of them and tear them a second pooper with a well placed sneak attack.

[Six]

In essence, all V was saying was that a wizard can't be prepared for every eventuality, and went on to explain that they must be capable of devising other ways of moving around their problems if they can't directly defeat them.
I think it was less a commentary on magic, and more a general tactical anecdote, but one I've much love for.

[JaronK]

And while JaronK's description of what V should have been doing is certainly satisfying, it's not really possible. V is an Evoker who barred Conjuration and Necromancy (heart attack inducing as it may be to some on the board), and so V couldn't have reanimated any Storm Giants or used Animate Dread Warrior on previously slain enemies (as those are Necromancy spells), or abused Planar Binding for Efreet loops (as that's a Conjuration effect).

MrRigger

Sure, because V's supposed to not be that optimized. But the concept of proactive play is still valid, even if the point V makes is only relevant to other reactive only casters. V could be using divinations to turn reactive situations into proactive ones (instead of "oh crap, a Drow Wizard is attacking me" it would be "now I shall prepare to kill the Drow Wizard that will attack me today") and thus be ready for the attack (Contingency: Cast Assay Spell Resistance on my target when I cast X blast spell would even work).

Basically, V's complaint is the complaint of a purely reactive player, and falls flat if you do anything but reactive play. But then again, V is a very stereotypical Wizard in a lot of ways, and is simply acting out that basic blaster wizard role.

JaronK

[Six]

Sure, because V's supposed to not be that optimized. But the concept of proactive play is still valid, even if the point V makes is only relevant to other reactive only casters. V could be using divinations to turn reactive situations into proactive ones (instead of "oh crap, a Drow Wizard is attacking me" it would be "now I shall prepare to kill the Drow Wizard that will attack me today") and thus be ready for the attack (Contingency: Cast Assay Spell Resistance on my target when I cast X blast spell would even work).

Basically, V's complaint is the complaint of a purely reactive player, and falls flat if you do anything but reactive play. But then again, V is a very stereotypical Wizard in a lot of ways, and is simply acting out that basic blaster wizard role.

JaronK

I have to disagree. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any divination spells that would allow him to see into the future, and it's also worthy of note that with all the preparation in the world, a carefully set up suckerpunch can blindside anyone.

[Amphetryon]

I have to disagree. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any divination spells that would allow him to see into the future, and it's also worthy of note that with all the preparation in the world, a carefully set up suckerpunch can blindside anyone.
There are several. Here's one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm). That's basically the main shtick of Divination, after all.

[Taelas]

Using contact other plane, there's always a 10% chance you're going to get an incorrect answer. Actually, make that 11%.

[MrRigger]

Sure, because V's supposed to not be that optimized. But the concept of proactive play is still valid, even if the point V makes is only relevant to other reactive only casters. V could be using divinations to turn reactive situations into proactive ones (instead of "oh crap, a Drow Wizard is attacking me" it would be "now I shall prepare to kill the Drow Wizard that will attack me today") and thus be ready for the attack (Contingency: Cast Assay Spell Resistance on my target when I cast X blast spell would even work).

Basically, V's complaint is the complaint of a purely reactive player, and falls flat if you do anything but reactive play. But then again, V is a very stereotypical Wizard in a lot of ways, and is simply acting out that basic blaster wizard role.

JaronK

Oh, I agree, your point about proactive play is a good one. However, V doesn't exactly have a high opinion of proactive play. Remember, last time she/he tried that, he/she had every divination in the book (and some specifically made by her/him for the occasion) failed horribly. Of course, this was because of the epic Abjuration Cloister, and Epic Spellcasting is Broken, but that still doesn't mean V doesn't associate Divination with failure.

And, as a player who doesn't get to play much (and has some railroading DM's when I do), what Divinations would V use to find out that Zz would be attacking that day?

There's also the fact that Zz is V's nemesis, a position that has tangible benefits in the OotS setting (see Haley and Crystal's situation). Zz is built to nullify and beat V.

MrRigger

EDIT: Okay, there's Contact Other Plane. Any others? Because I'd rather not rely on one (possibly inaccurate) source of information.

[Amphetryon]

Using contact other plane, there's always a 10% chance you're going to get an incorrect answer. Actually, make that 11%.

Use it twice and your odds become amazing, and it's not the only option. I think my point stands.

[Six]

There are several. Here's one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm). That's basically the main shtick of Divination, after all.

Aah. I always feel a little bit like those are cheating, and steer clear of them in my own use, but I suppose from a purely optimal standpoint, you're definitely correct.

[JaronK]

Well, for story reasons V is of course not a very well played Wizard, or this whole story would be rather pointless. Rich has to make her play as someone without common sense or careful study, because the entire comic would be stupid without that... the same goes for Xylon. So V's point applies only to this very specific style of play that Rich likes.

As for spells, Contact Other Plane. If you really want to go for it, use the binary logic trick to effectively ask thousands of questions per day. For example...

"Start with 0. Add 1 if I will be attacked tomorrow. Add 2 if I will be attacked two days from now. Add 4 if I will be attacked three days from now. Add 8 if I will be attacked four days from now. Add 16 if I will be attacked five days from now. Add 32 if I will be attacked six days from now. Add 64 if I will be attacked 7 days from now. If the soonest attack will be from a magic user, add 128. If the soonest attack will be from someone with a spell resistance more than 5 above my caster level, add 256. What is the resulting numerical answer to this equation?"

You get the idea. So if the answer we get is "389" then I know I'll be attacked tomorrow by a spell caster with significant spell resistance, and I'll also be attacked three days from now (so I should probably ask about that more specifically next time). In fact, for every answer between 0 and 511 we get useful information on when we'll be attacked in the next week and what sort of attack they'll use. And nothing stops you from extending this as far as you like, as long as you keep using powers of 2 as the thing you add. Note this also can weed out false answers... if three days of questions have resulted in the statement that you'll be attacked on Thursday and the fourth says you won't, that fourth answer might be off. In fact you can intentionally bury verification questions into it, for example assigning one value to "if my name is V" and another to "if I have ten fingers when asking this question." If those flags are improperly assigned, the answer is false and should be ignored.

And if you think this is silly, remember this is a caster so smart they can bend reality. Frankly, I'd expect such things to be Wizarding 201. But I bet none of the Wizards tell the Sorcerers, because they're just smug like that.

But again, such a thing isn't good for the story at all, so it can't be in the comic.

JaronK

[Taelas]

Use it twice and your odds become amazing, and it's not the only option. I think my point stands.

Assuming you ask the same entity, I'd say you'll receive exactly the same answer you did the first time--why would they suddenly change the answer they gave you before? Sure, you can ask a new entity, but the spell is not exactly friendly towards them, and I don't think annoying half the pantheon is a great career move.

It takes a 40 Int to even ask questions without risk (assuming you try for the best possibility by asking a greater deity). Also remember that you only get one-word answers. While you might be clever enough to come up with questions where a true one-word reply will be sufficient to actually answer the question, not everyone is.

You will never be absolutely certain of the validity of your answers. You also risk antagonizing a greater deity (or more!) by constantly haranguing them with questions -- the spell specifically says they resent the contact.

Feel free to start listing other options.

[Shadowknight12]

*binary logic trick*

The answer to all that would be "irrelevant," as per the spell description.

[Taelas]

"Complicated" would also work. There are many examples of true answers to questions which will not help you one iota -- and they are even encouraged by the spell, as the entities resent the contact.

[Tebryn]

Well, for story reasons V is of course not a very well played Wizard, or this whole story would be rather pointless. Rich has to make her play as someone without common sense or careful study, because the entire comic would be stupid without that... the same goes for Xylon. So V's point applies only to this very specific style of play that Rich likes.


I think this is a little presumptuous and frankly narrow minded. There isn't one single way to play a Wizard "correctly". Everyone has their own take on how to play, don't you think it's a little rude to assume that if they don't play by your standard they're doing it wrong? That's the problem with these boards really, if you're not beating the game on your own by level 6 than you're playing the game wrong.

[Infernalbargain]

The answer to all that would be "irrelevant," as per the spell description.

Aye, his trick only works up to 3 questions since all numbers up to sixteen are one word, though a DM could be cruel and not necessarily have languages where all the numbers are more than one word. After all, do you know how to say 15 in draconic? This is more plausible for wizards because they know more languages so the entity could just respond in the language that where this comes up.

[Shadowknight12]

Aye, his trick only works up to 3 questions since all numbers up to sixteen are one word, though a DM could be cruel and not necessarily have languages where all the numbers are more than one word. After all, do you know how to say 15 in draconic? This is more plausible for wizards because they know more languages so the entity could just respond in the language that where this comes up.

Or anything involving mathematics whatsoever. What does a being made of pure belief, a being that transcends the very coil of reality, find some puny mortal's mathematics relevant?

[Taelas]

Aye, his trick only works up to 3 questions since all numbers up to sixteen are one word, though a DM could be cruel and not necessarily have languages where all the numbers are more than one word. After all, do you know how to say 15 in draconic? This is more plausible for wizards because they know more languages so the entity could just respond in the language that where this comes up.

That's right -- 389 is at least three words (three hundred eighty-nine). It is not a valid answer.

[Rogue Shadows]

Or anything involving mathematics whatsoever. What does a being made of pure belief, a being that transcends the very coil of reality, find some puny mortal's mathematics relevant?

That's why you try and contact Primus. He'll actually dig the mathematics and will resent you less.

[Kantolin]

"Complicated" would also work. There are many examples of true answers to questions which will not help you one iota -- and they are even encouraged by the spell, as the entities resent the contact.

So contact other plane is a spell you cast for giggles that doesn't do anything? :P

[Rogue Shadows]

So contact other plane is a spell you cast for giggles that doesn't do anything? :P

Not necessarily. It's still possible to use it to ask a series of yes or no questions to achieve the same effect. Essentially you become a computer programmer using an IF/THEN system.

[Shadowknight12]

So contact other plane is a spell you cast for giggles that doesn't do anything? :P

Pretty much, yes.


That's why you try and contact Primus. He'll actually dig the mathematics and will resent you less.

A shame he'll give you an answer that sounds correct, but then you realise he used a different numerical base.

[Rogue Shadows]

A shame he'll give you an answer that sounds correct, but then you realise he used a different numerical base.

What, Primus? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that yon 22-INT Wizard will know what number system the One and the Prime will use. Especially as long as the answer is in a language yon Wizard knows and yon Wizard contacted Primus in the first place.

Probably Binary.

[Shadowknight12]

What, Primus? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that yon 22-INT Wizard will know what number system the One and the Prime will use. Especially as long as the answer is in a language yon Wizard knows and yon Wizard contacted Primus in the first place.

Probably Binary.

I would, in fact, think that such a thing would be unconscionable for any non-epic mortal. If you need a spell to predict what's going to happen tomorrow, you can't possibly hope to predict what number base a divine entity is going to use to answer your question. Also, you're confusing mathematics and language. I can tell you the answer to your question in the same language you asked me your question, but I can use whatever numerical base I please.

Say my answer is "100." And you say "Coolio, that means I'm not going to get attacked tomorrow, I'm going to get attacked on Friday, by a spellcaster." Turns out my answer wasn't given in a decimal base, but in binary, and the answer was actually 4. Or I gave you the answer in hexadecimal, and it was 256. And so on. All of this is still English.

[MrRigger]

JaronK's binary logic post

While there are a few flaws others have pointed out, I wouldn't trust this purely on the fact that I wouldn't trust my DM to do the math correctly (or myself, depending on how long the string gets). Just because the 40 INT Wizard can figure this out doesn't mean the slightly inebriated person across the table from me can. This also seems like a good way to bring the game to a screeching halt, while the DM looks up all the information you just asked him and does the math, all the while looking for his DMG to bean you in the head with. I'm all for effective characters, but this seems a lot closer to Theoretical Optimization than Practical Optimization to me (unless that was your intention in the first place, pointing out where you could go with COP, not where you should go).

MrRigger

[Rogue Shadows]

I would, in fact, think that such a thing would be unconscionable for any non-epic mortal. If you need a spell to predict what's going to happen tomorrow, you can't possibly hope to predict what number base a divine entity is going to use to answer your question.

That seems deliberately obtuse on the part of the DM, though. Which is funny because I remember myself being on the opposite side of this very argument at one point, and I think it was you over here, though I could be wrong...


Also, you're confusing mathematics and language. I can tell you the answer to your question in the same language you asked me your question, but I can use whatever numerical base I please.

Say my answer is "100." And you say "Coolio, that means I'm not going to get attacked tomorrow, I'm going to get attacked on Friday, by a spellcaster." Turns out my answer wasn't given in a decimal base, but in binary, and the answer was actually 4. Or I gave you the answer in hexadecimal, and it was 256. And so on. All of this is still English.

Actually, not technically, unless your answer was "one zero zero" or "two five six." And even then, I'm pretty sure not.

The answer "one hundred" is, for example, inherently decimal. A responce in a, say, base nine number system would in Hindu-Arabic be represented with the numbers 100, but the actual word spoken would not be "one hundred," not properly, anyway, so if Primus answered "one hundred" when his intended answer was "four," then he was lying.

(side note fun fact - in base 9, 100 is evenly divisible by 3!)

[Kantolin]

Pretty much, yes.

Well, um. ^_^ Yes, Contact Other Plane is a fair spell (or well, it's actually a severely, cataclysmically underpowered spell) if it doesn't actually give you any information due to DM fiat.

Anything is phenominally underpowered if the DM won't let it succeed.

By default, however, the spell does something. If I as a DM didn't want someone to use it to get information as it was wrecking my campaign, I'd ask the party not to use it or ban it or something, not include 'you didn't say you weren't on fire!' passive-aggressive style responses. :P

Edit: Whoops, missed this:


Not necessarily

Oh no, I wasn't aiming this at you. I was aiming it at the idea that every time you use it, you in fact do not get the information you want and always get faulty information, which shadowknight seems to be suggesting.

Dieties in shadowknight's settings sound like jerks. See if I ever ask Pelor for help in destroying the undead lich again.

[Rogue Shadows]

Dieties in shadowknight's settings sound like jerks. See if I ever ask Pelor for help in destroying the undead lich again.

Frankly, I'm not so sure that's a good idea anyway. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor_the_Burning_Hate)

[tyckspoon]

This also seems like a good way to bring the game to a screeching halt, while the DM looks up all the information you just asked him and does the math, all the while looking for his DMG to bean you in the head with.
MrRigger

Which is why you're better off with the "Will I have to fight any beings with spells or spell-like abilities in the next week?" (Yes) "What type is the most powerful of these beings?" (Outsider) "What variety of Outsider?" (Demon) "What class of demon?" (Marilith) approach most of the time, because it just makes the DM check his notes and see what he had planned as the most threatening thing in the next set-piece fight/what the biggest and baddest thing on his random encounter table is. If you're really aggressive about it you can try and worm out every little thing in his current notes, but most of the time you only really care if you're going to run into a dragon/angel/high-power demon/classed caster anyway, and it doesn't take too much to check for them.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Also, if you are being proactive, you can use divination to know where likely problem cases are.

Locate Creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) for example, tells you where something is. Look up Dominic Deegan for the term 'bastard watch'... if you have a few reoccurring opponents, it's trivial to keep tabs on them all.

If that's not enough, Discern Location (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm) is a lot more exacting.

Greater Prying Eyes is also a great screen to know exactly what is going on around you.

Scrying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) lets you watch him on Candid Camera!

Greater Scrying lets you do that as a standard action, with a duration of hours/level, and allows you to use Tongues so they can't try to fool you by using obscure languages.

Of course, a Cleric has better methods of predicting the future.

It all starts with Augury (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/augury.htm)

Divination (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm) is a higher level and more powerful version. Simply ask it if you're going to be attacked by someone who has previously attacked you, and it should spit out something relevant.

Commune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm) gives you one yes/no question per caster level. There's your binary tree right there.

The Planar Ally series of spells can also be used to obtain information. Try something like "Keep an eye on these individuals (via scrying or other means, depending on the outsider). If they are going to activate a plan which is supposed to cause me harm or hamper my ultimate goal, come tell me when they plan on putting it into action, and what the plan is."

As it is a nonhazardous task, cost is reduced. Ask someone with a vested interest in stopping their plans, and you may get payment waived all together. Asking a deva, for example, to keep an eye on CE evildoers who are wanting to take over the world, and he'd probably be delighted to.

Of course, the Oracle domain has most of these, so Arcane Disciple can put these on a wizard's list...

[Worira]

Locate Creature only works if they're within 400+40 per caster level feet of you, though. At which point you can probably just outright see them.

[Shadowknight12]

That seems deliberately obtuse on the part of the DM, though. Which is funny because I remember myself being on the opposite side of this very argument at one point, and I think it was you over here, though I could be wrong...

As a response to a player utterly disregarding the DM's intentions, plans and preferences, of course. The player has been the first one to breach the agreement that they would both work to ensure each other's fun, and therefore can't complain when similar bastardry is pulled against him. Of course, that's the sort of thing that one resolves OOCly. My reply wasn't intended to imply what I'd do or recommend others to do, but what could potentially happen.


Actually, not technically, unless your answer was "one zero zero" or "two five six." And even then, I'm pretty sure not.

The answer "one hundred" is, for example, inherently decimal. A responce in a, say, base nine number system would in Hindu-Arabic be represented with the numbers 100, but the actual word spoken would not be "one hundred," not properly, anyway, so if Primus answered "one hundred" when his intended answer was "four," then he was lying.

(side note fun fact - in base 9, 100 is evenly divisible by 3!)

The answer "one hundred" is not a single word, therefore impossible under a strict reading of the spell's rules. So is the answer "one zero zero." The answer would have to be "100", which is (according to accepted interpretations) the equivalent of a single word.

You're quite correct about everything else.


Well, um. ^_^ Yes, Contact Other Plane is a fair spell (or well, it's actually a severely, cataclysmically underpowered spell) if it doesn't actually give you any information due to DM fiat.

Anything is phenominally underpowered if the DM won't let it succeed.

By default, however, the spell does something. If I as a DM didn't want someone to use it to get information as it was wrecking my campaign, I'd ask the party not to use it or ban it or something, not include 'you didn't say you weren't on fire!' passive-aggressive style responses. :P

Of course the spell does something. Ask something like "Am I going to get attacked tomorrow?" and you might get a somewhat truthful answer. I prefer divinations that are cryptic and hide a tiny grain of truth, but COP doesn't allow for much of that. So I'd go for hazy answers instead. If this approach ends up being utterly fatal to the player's fun... I suppose I could endeavour to be more accurate. But that still doesn't reveal anywhere near the amount of information the binary shenanigan would.


Oh no, I wasn't aiming this at you. I was aiming it at the idea that every time you use it, you in fact do not get the information you want and always get faulty information, which shadowknight seems to be suggesting.

Dieties in shadowknight's settings sound like jerks. See if I ever ask Pelor for help in destroying the undead lich again.

I didn't quite say that. I was merely pointing out that divinations aren't as iron-clad as everyone pretends they are. Abjuration deals with the most direct ones (Locate X, Detect Y, Scry Z), while the most indirect ones (like Augury, Divination and COP) are wholly dependent on the DM.

[Rogue Shadows]

You're quite correct about everything else.

"100" isn't actually pronounceable, so presumably you don't get a responce of that. Unless there's big glowing letters or something; that'd be cool, I guess. Even still and again; those 22 points of Intelligence are hopefully there for more than just bonus spells per day.

But if Primus (or whoever) can't answer in a single word, then the spell simply doesn't work; you don't get a wrong or misinterpretable answer.

[Shadowknight12]

"100" isn't actually pronounceable, so presumably you don't get a responce of that. Unless there's big glowing letters or something; that'd be cool, I guess.

But if Primus (or whoever) can't answer in a single word, then the spell simply doesn't work; you don't get a wrong or misinterpretable answer.

It's not actually pronounceable in our language (and by default, Common). They might be pronounceable in other languages available to the wizard. Or it could be plain old telepathy.

[Rogue Shadows]

It's not actually pronounceable in our language (and by default, Common). They might be pronounceable in other languages available to the wizard. Or it could be plain old telepathy.

Numbers on their own simply aren't pronounceable at all; that's what letters are for.

Plain old telepathy would probably fall under "glowing letters" header.

[Shadowknight12]

Numbers on their own simply aren't pronounceable at all; that's what letters are for.

Plain old telepathy would probably fall under "glowing letters" header.

And what about languages that are based on ideograms? They are pronounceable, yet they are not letters.

Welp, then we agree that there's at least one option that skedaddles the whole issue.

[Psyren]

V already knows the ultimate reactive spell. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0697.html) Why he never actually makes proper use of it is beyond me.

[Almagesto]

I think wizards shine the most when they have time to study what menaces they will be facing. So, yes, in a way I concur that they should be more proactive than reactive.

[Absol197]

Also, if you are being proactive, you can use divination to know where likely problem cases are.

Locate Creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) for example, tells you where something is. Look up Dominic Deegan for the term 'bastard watch'... if you have a few reoccurring opponents, it's trivial to keep tabs on them all.

The problem with this is that, assuming 20th level, it has a maximum range of 2,400 feet, and is blocked by running water. That's not even a half-mile away. Unless your big foes are dogging your every move, this is useless for keeping tabs on them.


If that's not enough, Discern Location (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm) is a lot more exacting.

Yes, discern location is a lot better. However, it's an 8th-level spell, which means that by the time you have easy access to it (Vaarsuvius does not, yet), your big opponents should have just as easy of access to its counter, mind blank, which is also an 8th-level spell.


Greater Prying Eyes is also a great screen to know exactly what is going on around you.

Scrying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) lets you watch him on Candid Camera!

Greater Scrying lets you do that as a standard action, with a duration of hours/level, and allows you to use Tongues so they can't try to fool you by using obscure languages.

Prying eyes is definitely a good one, but the problem is you don't have constant information; the eyes must return to you for you to know what they've seen. If your opponents notice and destroy the eye (not too difficult, all things considered), you'll never know what's going on. Of course, if an eye misses a check-in, you'll know something's up, but you won't know who or what.

All forms of scrying can be blocked (or at least inhibited) by a 3rd-level spell: nondetection. By the time you have scrying, most of your competent enemies will have access to it, and a scroll of such is incredibly cheap, so they don't need to waste a spell slot on it (or can sue it even if they're not a caster with UMD).


Of course, a Cleric has better methods of predicting the future.

It all starts with Augury (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/augury.htm)

Divination (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm) is a higher level and more powerful version. Simply ask it if you're going to be attacked by someone who has previously attacked you, and it should spit out something relevant.

No objections here; these are great spells! Unfortunately, they're not (normally) available to wizards.


Commune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm) gives you one yes/no question per caster level. There's your binary tree right there.

Right here I want to stop you. commune and contact other plane do not say that the questions you ask can draw on future knowledge. Augury and divination do. I have always taken this to mean that the two "yes/no" spells can't get you information from the future. If asked, the entity contacted either says it doesn't know, or makes its best educated guess.

Of course, that's my interpretation, you can disagree if you want, but it definitely puts a damper on some abuses of those spells.


The Planar Ally series of spells can also be used to obtain information. Try something like "Keep an eye on these individuals (via scrying or other means, depending on the outsider). If they are going to activate a plan which is supposed to cause me harm or hamper my ultimate goal, come tell me when they plan on putting it into action, and what the plan is."

As it is a nonhazardous task, cost is reduced. Ask someone with a vested interest in stopping their plans, and you may get payment waived all together. Asking a deva, for example, to keep an eye on CE evildoers who are wanting to take over the world, and he'd probably be delighted to. Yes, this would work wonderfully. It's a slightly expensive spell, but it can definitely get the job done. For long-term espionage, the costs can escalate dramatically, but all-in-all, probably one of the best ways of gathering information.

[MrRigger]

Of course, as good as the Planar Binding/Ally lines are, they're back into Conjuration, which V doesn't have access to (of course, she/he wouldn't have access to Planar Ally anyway, though Durkon should), not Divination, giving us yet more proof that even if you used nothing but Conjuration Spells, you could dominate the freaking game.

And Planar Ally is rather useless when you're trying to have your newfound ally track down that darn rogue that jacked all your stuff (really an agent of the BBEG who's looking to mess with the heroes just because he can, kitted up with nondetection and other abjurations). You have nothing to pay with. Sure, if you're a spellcaster, you should be able to generate money by breathing, but some games are just cash poor. See the copious amounts of threads where players complain because they're 7th level and still using crappy 1st level weapons and armor (a bit of exaggeration, but not non-existant).

MrRigger

[agahii]

Right here I want to stop you. commune and contact other plane do not say that the questions you ask can draw on future knowledge. Augury and divination do. I have always taken this to mean that the two "yes/no" spells can't get you information from the future. If asked, the entity contacted either says it doesn't know, or makes its best educated guess.


Could ask if any specific person "plans" to attack you. (after a few more general questions).

[Thespianus]

As for spells, Contact Other Plane. If you really want to go for it, use the binary logic trick to effectively ask thousands of questions per day. For example...

"Start with 0. Add 1 if I will be attacked tomorrow. Add 2 if I will be attacked two days from now. Add 4 if I will be attacked three days from now. Add 8 if I will be attacked four days from now. Add 16 if I will be attacked five days from now. Add 32 if I will be attacked six days from now. Add 64 if I will be attacked 7 days from now. If the soonest attack will be from a magic user, add 128. If the soonest attack will be from someone with a spell resistance more than 5 above my caster level, add 256. What is the resulting numerical answer to this equation?"
However, there's nothing in the Spell Description that says that the replying deities can look into the future, is there? The spell says you can "ask for advice and information", but why would that mean knowledge of future events?

If the argument is "It doesn't say that they can't look into the future", I could use the same argument for any normal conversation with any random NPC. ;)

I'm playing a Focused Diviner (mistake) right now, and I have yet to be very successful as a diviner, mainly using my Unseen Seer levels to boost my sneak attacks through Hunter's Eye, so I'm all ears. :)

Edit: Ah, Absol197 is a ninja! ;)

[NNescio]

However, there's nothing in the Spell Description that says that the replying deities can look into the future, is there? The spell says you can "ask for advice and information", but why would that mean knowledge of future events?

If the argument is "It doesn't say that they can't look into the future", I could use the same argument for any normal conversation with any random NPC. ;)

I'm playing a Focused Diviner (mistake) right now, and I have yet to be very successful as a diviner, mainly using my Unseen Seer levels to boost my sneak attacks through Hunter's Eye, so I'm all ears. :)

Portfolio Sense.

[Thespianus]

Portfolio Sense.

Ah, ok, so if you manage contact with a Greater Deity, they have Portfolio Sense at least one week into the future. That would help.

So, now all you need to do is to safely beat a DC 16 Intelligence check too. ;) You really don't want to have your Intelligence to be 8 for 5 weeks.

[Greenish]

Circle Dance is a 3rd level spell that can tell you the direction and the physical and mental condition of any creature you've met (who is in the same plane).

Do it twice in separate places and you can also calculate the distance. (Would probably fall under Know (Geography), since that's what's used for, say, navigating a ship according to Stormwreck.)


Best thing: it offers no save, no SR, and can't be blocked by effects that block divination, since it targets you.

[JaronK]

Guys, seriously, you're an Int 26+ Wizard. You can figure out how to phrase the question properly. In fact, you might as well ask it in base 36... which means an answer of "z" means 26. If you need to, lay out the code to be used for the answer in the question.

Instead of assuming you're playing stupid, figure out something that works. Remember, you can cast this spell once a day while you figure out what's going to make it work properly, and continue to do so as long as it takes. And you can do so asking gods that are either ambivalent to this process or in favor of it (gods of Mechanicus might find this a very interesting and appropriate tactic indeed). For whatever objection you're going to bring up, try and figure out how a super genius would solve the problem before deciding it's a deal breaker.

In the end, a DM who makes the god answer "Complicated" or "Irrelevant" or whatever is just nerfing the spell, but by RAW this trick does work just fine. I don't use this trick in real play simply because it kills the story (for the same reason V doesn't do something like this), but if a DM starts arbitrarily pulling stuff like answering "Irrelevant" and claiming it's RAW even though it's obviously not RAI, I just start building towers around myself and not adventuring and saying the rules let me do that too (or just leave the game, of course). There's a contract between player and DM to let the story be built between them. Railroading players around and making everything not work for them when it's not convenient is something you don't do, just as players don't decide not to follow the story entirely. We build the story together. The DM is in the end as powerless as the players... either side can always leave the game.

JaronK

[LordBlades]

Ah, ok, so if you manage contact with a Greater Deity, they have Portfolio Sense at least one week into the future. That would help.

So, now all you need to do is to safely beat a DC 16 Intelligence check too. ;) You really don't want to have your Intelligence to be 8 for 5 weeks.

You can take 10 on the check. So you need a +6 int modifier to be safe.

On the wider topic of Contact Other Plane and divinations in general, I think it's one of the things one would have to clear with the DM first(how much divination he is comfortable with). Some DMs just hate(and can't really cope with it) when the characters deconstruct their plot from the comfort of their living room while others enjoy the challenge of building villains that try to remain hidden.

[Rogue Shadows]

In the end, a DM who makes the god answer "Complicated" or "Irrelevant" or whatever is just nerfing the spell, but by RAW this trick does work just fine. I don't use this trick in real play simply because it kills the story (for the same reason V doesn't do something like this), but if a DM starts arbitrarily pulling stuff like answering "Irrelevant" and claiming it's RAW even though it's obviously not RAI, I just start building towers around myself and not adventuring and saying the rules let me do that too (or just leave the game, of course). There's a contract between player and DM to let the story be built between them. Railroading players around and making everything not work for them when it's not convenient is something you don't do, just as players don't decide not to follow the story entirely. We build the story together. The DM is in the end as powerless as the players... either side can always leave the game.

Presumably none of this applies if the DM actually uses the table provided in the spell's description, though, and is just getting the "lies" or "random answer" result.

[Thespianus]

Guys, seriously, you're an Int 26+ Wizard. You can figure out how to phrase the question properly. In fact, you might as well ask it in base 36... which means an answer of "z" means 26. If you need to, lay out the code to be used for the answer in the question.

If the only limit is "It has to be a one word answer", hit up the Greater Deity of Choice with a description of Base64-encoding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64).

Sure, the answer might be tough to pronounce, but it'll be one word. :smallamused:

Might be hard to explain Base64 encoding in one round, though.:smallsmile:

[Greenish]

You can take 10 on the check. So you need a +6 int modifier to be safe.Can you take 10 on an ability check? I thought that was only for skill checks (unless you have some special ability).

[Thespianus]

You can take 10 on the check. So you need a +6 int modifier to be safe.
I'd rule the direct contact with a Greater Deity, under the threat of losing all your spell casting for 5 weeks, as circumstances that make Taking 10 very tricky indeed.

[Thespianus]

Can you take 10 on an ability check? I thought that was only for skill checks (unless you have some special ability).

No, it's ok for Ability checks but not caster level checks:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm


Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks
The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.

[olentu]

Can you take 10 on an ability check? I thought that was only for skill checks (unless you have some special ability).

Oh as far as I can recall the take 10 and 20 rules are said to apply for ability checks.

[LordBlades]

I'd rule the direct contact with a Greater Deity, under the threat of losing all your spell casting for 5 weeks, as circumstances that make Taking 10 very tricky indeed.

You can houserule it of course (see my comment above about clearing it with the DM first) although I feel it's fairer to the player to say 'I don't want this spell in my game' rather than 'I'll allow it but nerf it into uselessness' but RAW it works.

From the SRD:

Ability checks(bolded the relevant part):


Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

Taking 10:


When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

The rules regarding penalties for failure (which CoP has) only apply to taking 20, not taking 10.

[Infernalbargain]

Guys, seriously, you're an Int 26+ Wizard. You can figure out how to phrase the question properly. In fact, you might as well ask it in base 36... which means an answer of "z" means 26. If you need to, lay out the code to be used for the answer in the question.

Instead of assuming you're playing stupid, figure out something that works. Remember, you can cast this spell once a day while you figure out what's going to make it work properly, and continue to do so as long as it takes. And you can do so asking gods that are either ambivalent to this process or in favor of it (gods of Mechanicus might find this a very interesting and appropriate tactic indeed). For whatever objection you're going to bring up, try and figure out how a super genius would solve the problem before deciding it's a deal breaker.

In the end, a DM who makes the god answer "Complicated" or "Irrelevant" or whatever is just nerfing the spell, but by RAW this trick does work just fine. I don't use this trick in real play simply because it kills the story (for the same reason V doesn't do something like this), but if a DM starts arbitrarily pulling stuff like answering "Irrelevant" and claiming it's RAW even though it's obviously not RAI, I just start building towers around myself and not adventuring and saying the rules let me do that too (or just leave the game, of course). There's a contract between player and DM to let the story be built between them. Railroading players around and making everything not work for them when it's not convenient is something you don't do, just as players don't decide not to follow the story entirely. We build the story together. The DM is in the end as powerless as the players... either side can always leave the game.

JaronK

Your method still has issues with language. Is the number 3 a single word in Chondathan? After all, none of the numerals in Rapanui are single words. It happens in a few other languages, including ancient Greek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers_in_various_languages
IMO if there's cases of it happening in the real world, it's a valid trick to pull by the DM.


Do it twice in separate places and you can also calculate the distance. (Would probably fall under Know (Geography), since that's what's used for, say, navigating a ship according to Stormwreck.)

There's 4 issues with that method. First, even if the world was flat the solution to that is not unique, there are two points that would satisfy those conditions, you need a third for uniqueness. Second, any extra dimensions are screw this up, you need an additional casting for each dimension. Third, you're assuming that you're working in cartesian space, which is not usually the case and can become very severe on highly morphic planes (this plane is in the shape of a Klein bottle, have fun!). Finally, there's time lag between castings. If a light horse is sprinting and there is only a 1 round delay, that's an area of ~1000 square feet; this is to say nothing of knowing its momentum.

[Infernalbargain]

You can houserule it of course (see my comment above about clearing it with the DM first) although I feel it's fairer to the player to say 'I don't want this spell in my game' rather than 'I'll allow it but nerf it into uselessness' but RAW it works.

From the SRD:

Ability checks(bolded the relevant part):



Taking 10:



The rules regarding penalties for failure (which CoP has) only apply to taking 20, not taking 10.


Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10

CoP is not a threat?

[agahii]

I'd rule the direct contact with a Greater Deity, under the threat of losing all your spell casting for 5 weeks, as circumstances that make Taking 10 very tricky indeed.

Well it is not a direct threat to your person as you will not be harmed by it, only inconvenienced, I'd say the inconvenience is in line with the inconvenience of having an escape artist check fail even if you would succeed on an average roll and thus staying tied up. I always felt you where only disallowed from take 10 when the failure directly results in a fight, or physical threat to the skill users person (EX: fail and this dude will stab you, and you may die). Not saying losing int isn't not serious, but there are things you can take 10 on that failure is serious, just not immediate harm to your person. This is all dm dependent however unless someone has a more specific rule I suppose.

EDIT: may be wrong anyway if it is only on take 20 that this matters.

[Thespianus]

You can houserule it of course (see my comment above about clearing it with the DM first) although I feel it's fairer to the player to say 'I don't want this spell in my game' rather than 'I'll allow it but nerf it into uselessness' but RAW it works.
What I'm saying is that risking to lose your spell casting for a month is a quite severe threat to a wizard, and direct mental contact with a Greater Deity would reasonably make even a Wizard feel distracted. Both are circumstances that make - by RAW - Taking 10 impossible.

Now, granted, there's no RAW definition of "being threatened" (outside of melee combat, at least) or "distracted", so one could argue either way. But if you'd consider contacting Greater Deities as a "routine task", I think we're playing different types of games. :smallwink:

[LordBlades]

What I'm saying is that risking to lose your spell casting for a month is a quite severe threat to a wizard, and direct mental contact with a Greater Deity would reasonably make even a Wizard feel distracted. Both are circumstances that make - by RAW - Taking 10 impossible.

Now, granted, there's no RAW definition of "being threatened" (outside of melee combat, at least) or "distracted", so one could argue either way. But if you'd consider contacting Greater Deities as a "routine task", I think we're playing different types of games. :smallwink:

On the distraction issue, you can't really be distracted from what you do (casting CoP) by what you do (casting CoP). It just makes no sense to me.

As for the threat, I'd classify possible intelligence loss as 'the check carries a penalty for failing' rather than 'you are threatened' (which are separate entries in the skill section, see the take 20 paragraph, if the penalty for failing induced a threat, there would be no need for a separation between them) but there's no definite RAW answer on that.

[olentu]

On the distraction issue, you can't really be distracted from what you do (casting CoP) by what you do (casting CoP). It just makes no sense to me.

AS for the threat, I'd classify possible intelligence loss as 'the check carries a penalty for failing' rather than 'you are threatened' (which are separate entries in the skill section, see the take 20 paragraph, if the penalty for failing induced a threat, there would be no need for a separation between them) but there's no definite RAW answer on that.

To note an opinion generally I would think that the threat of death is generally supposed to be a much greater threat then anything that goes away on its own. So if one can take 10 when failing may result in death I would find it reasonable to allow it in the face of an inconvenience.

Alternatively if death is not really a threat then one is in a situation where contacting greater deities is easily a routine task.

[Greenish]

Your method still has issues with language. Is the number 3 a single word in Chondathan?If you have to answer in a single word, and you were a greater deity, wouldn't you use a language that has the word you need to answer?

Better yet, CoP says that "the powers reply in a language you understand". Have your character only understand a few agglutinative languages (and use Tongues on other times).


There's 4 issues with that method. First, even if the world was flat the solution to that is not unique, there are two points that would satisfy those conditions, you need a third for uniqueness.Two points? Remember, one spell is all you need for direction, second gives you the distance.


Second, any extra dimensions are screw this up, you need an additional casting for each dimension.Assuming a planet anything like ours, the places you could assume the target to be are rather limited in distance from center (depending on the powers of the individual, of course). One casting is enough to figure whether the target is on the same side of the globe as you are, two let you calculate the direction.


Finally, there's time lag between castings. If a light horse is sprinting and there is only a 1 round delay, that's an area of ~1000 square feet; this is to say nothing of knowing its momentum.Eh, with one minute casting time, it's best used on long ranges, granted.


It's not exact, but it's enough to tell you if they're in the next town over, in the capital of the evil kingdom, or perhaps hiding in the cellar of the inn.

[Infernalbargain]

On the distraction issue, you can't really be distracted from what you do (casting CoP) by what you do (casting CoP). It just makes no sense to me.

As for the threat, I'd classify possible intelligence loss as 'the check carries a penalty for failing' rather than 'you are threatened' (which are separate entries in the skill section, see the take 20 paragraph, if the penalty for failing induced a threat, there would be no need for a separation between them) but there's no definite RAW answer on that.

Well the rules don't say a lot of things. For example, you are unaware of an invisible man trying to clobber you (he misses a lot and has greater invisibility), can you take 10? What if you are aware of the invisible man?

We just have to use some common sense. I think that knowingly exposing one's self to a being whose overwhelming presence might cause a severe mental overload disqualifies you from taking 10.

[Infernalbargain]

If you have to answer in a single word, and you were a greater deity, wouldn't you use a language that has the word you need to answer?

The deity merely has to answer in a language that you understand, it doesn't have to be helpful after all.


Two points? Remember, one spell is all you need for direction, second gives you the distance.

Ah, I thought you were casting the distance spell twice to triangulate. In flat space you're right.


Assuming a planet anything like ours, the places you could assume the target to be are rather limited in distance from center (depending on the powers of the individual, of course). One casting is enough to figure whether the target is on the same side of the globe as you are, two let you calculate the direction.


You are at the north pole. It tells you to go south. Which way do you go? Even on a sphere, direction and distance still gives two possibilities since walking in a straight line will cause you to go through two points that were the same distance away from your starting location.

[jiriku]

Looking at CoP from where it's coming from in earlier editions too, it's obvious that the spell is intended to impose a risk of failure and severe consequences for failure. That the take 10 rules make it completely safe is a design oversight. Learning a new spell is similar: there's supposed to be a risk of failure when a wizard copies a new spell into his spellbook, but the take 10 rule makes it 100% certain unless the wizard has a terrible Spellcraft modifier. Take 10 was supposed to eliminate trivial rolls and keep the action moving, but it's obvious that it had some unintended consequences.

By RAW, CoP is a safe spell to cast via take 10, but when applying RAI or (gasp) house rules, it clearly needs a die roll.

[Greenish]

Ah, I thought you were casting the distance spell twice to triangulate. In flat space you're right.You are triangulating, but you cast the direction spell twice.


You are at the north pole. It tells you to go south. Which way do you go?The way it points you to. In Circle Dance, you dance for a minute and end up facing towards the target. If you're facing towards the ground, you'll know that the target is either beneath you in a cave, or on the other side of the globe. Second casting some distance from the first reveals which.

[Infernalbargain]

Ok, 2 castings of distance and 2 castings of direction will get it on a sphere.

[Greenish]

Ok, 2 castings of distance and 2 castings of direction will get it on a sphere.Huh? The spell gives you an exact direction. You cast it from two different places, you can calculate the location.

[krai]

Overusing Contact Other Plane is something that gods tend to not appreciate. If a 5 year old kid kept walking up to you every couple of minutes to ask you what 2 + 2 is, it would get annoying. This is how I interpret how gods react to people asking them questions. Gods tend to smite people who bother them, smite them with horrible boils, or turn them into hideous abominations.

[Thespianus]

On the distraction issue, you can't really be distracted from what you do (casting CoP) by what you do (casting CoP). It just makes no sense to me.

It's not the casting of the spell that causes the strain on your brain, it's the divine presence of a greater deity, booming it's annoyed reply into your brain, that causes the strain. Communing with greater deities should not, in my book, be something you do every day. Greater Deities will frown upon that.

But YMMV. If you were to play in my game, you would be informed of this before playing. I assume we have different views on how easily a Wizard can bend the gods to do his bidding.

[Thespianus]

Huh? The spell gives you an exact direction. You cast it from two different places, you can calculate the location.

Seems we assume that the spell gives you the direction towards the target that yields the shortest route. ;)

So, yes, two castings from two different locations would yield one single point on a sphere (given that the two different locations are not on exact opposite sides of the sphere. :smallwink: )

[Greenish]

Seems we assume that the spell gives you the direction towards the target that yields the shortest route.No. Just direction. It's not Find the Path or anything. Why would we assume something like that? "You divine the relative location of the creature." "The spell leaves you facing in [creature's] direction."


So, yes, two castings from two different locations would yield one single point on a sphere (given that the two different locations are not on exact opposite sides of the sphere.)Even if they are on the exact opposite sides, the spell gives you the direction.

Which of the following statements are false?

If you know the direction of point A in relation to points B and C, and the locations of points B and C, you can calculate the location of point A.
Whether these points exist in two-dimensional matrix or three-dimensional one doesn't matter for the above.
Any point that's in the same relative direction from points B and C is by definition in the exactly same place as point A.

[LordBlades]

It's not the casting of the spell that causes the strain on your brain, it's the divine presence of a greater deity, booming it's annoyed reply into your brain, that causes the strain. Communing with greater deities should not, in my book, be something you do every day. Greater Deities will frown upon that.

So you're saying that you're distracted from listening to the deity's answer by the fact that the deity is speaking to you? From googling a definition of 'distraction':



Distraction is the divided attention of an individual or group from the chosen object of attention onto the source of distraction.


This implies the existence of at least 2 objects/activities: the object of attention (casting CoP and getting the result of the spell) and the source of distraction (which should be different from the object of attention).

If CoP was supposed to distract the spellcaster by itself, by rules, it would require a concentration check each round (since it requires a standard action to maintain, it requires a concentration check when distracted) and there's no mention of anything like that in the spell's text.


But YMMV. If you were to play in my game, you would be informed of this before playing. I assume we have different views on how easily a Wizard can bend the gods to do his bidding.

Of course, every DM is entitled to his own opinion on how stuff works. And it's all right as long as it's not something stupid (which the present is not). As long as you make stuff like that clear to the players beforehand, I see no problem.

[Thespianus]

No. Just direction. It's not Find the Path or anything. Why would we assume something like that? "You divine the relative location of the creature." "The spell leaves you facing in [creature's] direction."
I failed my geometry skill check. On a sphere, every direction will result in a circle around the sphere, not in the spiral path that eventually takes you to every point on the surface of the sphere that I envisioned.

My bad.


Even if they are on the exact opposite sides, the spell gives you the direction.
If the direction is given in three dimensions, we would be able to triangulate to the target in that case too. However, if "direction" just means "walk in this direction to reach the target", ie 2D-space, we will just know the direction.


Which of the following statements are false?

If you know the direction of point A in relation to points B and C, and the locations of points B and C, you can calculate the location of point A.
Whether these points exist in two-dimensional matrix or three-dimensional one doesn't matter for the above.
Any point that's in the same relative direction from points B and C is by definition in the exactly same place as point A.

None, if we assume that we get "direction" in 3D coordinates. If "direction" is in 2D surface coordinates, things end up in a different light.

[Thespianus]

So you're saying that you're distracted from listening to the deity's answer by the fact that the deity is speaking to you?
No, what I mean is, IMHO, you're distracted from not losing your mind by the fact that the deity is speaking to you.

In other words: You have no problem hearing the answer, but the act of receiving the answer puts a strain on your brain.

[turkishproverb]

The only way you can be guaranteed to be prepared every time as a wizard is if your DM is more generous with Divinations than RAW would even require. And even then I'm not 100%

[LordBlades]

The only way you can be guaranteed to be prepared every time as a wizard is if your DM is more generous with Divinations than RAW would even require. And even then I'm not 100%

While you can't be prepared for everything, you can either be proactive as JaronK said (you go out and seek the threats you've prepared to face today) instead of waiting for unknown threats to come to you and/or prepare as best as you can (use all the info you can get from divinations) and keep a few strong escape spells handy.

It is extremely hard to challenge a wizard with a situation he can neither defeat nor run away from (so he can come back better prepared).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The problem with this is that, assuming 20th level, it has a maximum range of 2,400 feet, and is blocked by running water. That's not even a half-mile away. Unless your big foes are dogging your every move, this is useless for keeping tabs on them.



Yes, discern location is a lot better. However, it's an 8th-level spell, which means that by the time you have easy access to it (Vaarsuvius does not, yet), your big opponents should have just as easy of access to its counter, mind blank, which is also an 8th-level spell. Both codiciles are granted, however Mind Blank is *NOT* easy to come by, unless the opponents all happen to be powerful arcane casters. Heck, I don't even think Xykon has it, although he's pretty silly about his spell choice.


Prying eyes is definitely a good one, but the problem is you don't have constant information; the eyes must return to you for you to know what they've seen. If your opponents notice and destroy the eye (not too difficult, all things considered), you'll never know what's going on. Of course, if an eye misses a check-in, you'll know something's up, but you won't know who or what. Still pretty good for a scouting information network to spoil ambushes and such. Greater version has True Sight as well as Invisibility.


All forms of scrying can be blocked (or at least inhibited) by a 3rd-level spell: nondetection. By the time you have scrying, most of your competent enemies will have access to it, and a scroll of such is incredibly cheap, so they don't need to waste a spell slot on it (or can sue it even if they're not a caster with UMD). Funny thing about that... let's read a cute little section from that spell:


If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection. If you cast nondetection on yourself or on an item currently in your possession, the DC is 15 + your caster level. So, scrolls generally have minimal caster level. Since Nondetection is, as you said, a 3rd level spell, that's a CL of 5. So, Caster Level check, DC 16. No sweat.

The other cute part about 'a rogue tricked out with nondetection' is that second phrase... you see, if you count 'cast' to also mean 'activated', then the Rogue, who has a Caster Level of 0, gives you a flat DC 15 on your CL check (DC being 15+ *YOUR* caster level).

In other words, Nondetection is not nearly as worthwhile as you seem to think.


No objections here; these are great spells! Unfortunately, they're not (normally) available to wizards. They're both in the Oracle domain. Arcane Disciple is a wonderful feat.


Right here I want to stop you. commune and contact other plane do not say that the questions you ask can draw on future knowledge. Augury and divination do. I have always taken this to mean that the two "yes/no" spells can't get you information from the future. If asked, the entity contacted either says it doesn't know, or makes its best educated guess.

Of course, that's my interpretation, you can disagree if you want, but it definitely puts a damper on some abuses of those spells. Not really. simply replace 'will anyone in the future' with 'is anyone currently planning, plotting, or carrying out a plan or plot' to end up with relevant information.


Yes, this would work wonderfully. It's a slightly expensive spell, but it can definitely get the job done. For long-term espionage, the costs can escalate dramatically, but all-in-all, probably one of the best ways of gathering information.

Not as expensive as you might think, depending on who you are talking to. Spell explicitly states that if you ask a being who has a vested interest in the task, they may well waive the fee. Even so, you halve the cost for being non-hazardous, then halve again for being aligned. That's a quarter cost. Not too shabby, and that's a worst-case scenario. As to whom you ask, you've got some options.

Hound Archon is pretty much tailor made to pull this kind of thing. He's got Sending to let you know promptly, tracking by scent, and can turn into random dogs to prevent the target from ever knowing he's being watched.

And at 6HD, they can be summoned with Lesser Planar Ally.

For something with a bit more power, a Planetar can be done with Greater Planar Ally, casts as a 17th level Cleric, and has access to all the aforementioned scrying. Since it probably doesn't have much else better to do than to watch someone trying to destroy the world, it can literally use the aforementioned Greater Scrying and Discern Location to find your problem child and keep tabs on it 24/7 without needing to leave the steps of a temple of it's alignment.

For that matter, a Trumpet Archon is 12 HD, so can be summoned with Planar Ally, casts as a 14th level Cleric, and also has access to Scry, Divination, and can also keep tabs on your problem children without needing to be anywhere near them.

If your opponent suddenly develops a case of Mind Blank, well... that's valuable information as well. Send a Hound Archon to track them with perfectly mundane means, starting from their last known location. If they teleported out, use Divination to find out where they went to... even if the DID have mind Blank up, since you aren't targeting THEM with a divination effect. It also means that either 1) he suddenly hit 8th level arcane spells (so you know *EXACTLY* what level he is now), or 2) he's about to lay a curb stomp down on you, or 3) he's about to put his plan into action, which means it's time to go stop him.

[Boci]

Both codiciles are granted, however Mind Blank is *NOT* easy to come by, unless the opponents all happen to be powerful arcane casters. Heck, I don't even think Xykon has it, although he's pretty silly about his spell choice.

Probably doesn't help that neing undead he presumably thinks the spell would be a waste since he's already immune to the majority of things Mindblank protects you against.

[Greenish]

If the direction is given in three dimensions, we would be able to triangulate to the target in that case too. However, if "direction" just means "walk in this direction to reach the target", ie 2D-space, we will just know the direction.Well, we could still triangulate, if we assumed the target was on the surface of the sphere.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Probably doesn't help that neing undead he presumably thinks the spell would be a waste since he's already immune to the majority of things Mindblank protects you against.

Granted, but Meteor Swarm over Time Stop? Or Shapechange? Or GATE?

[Thespianus]

Well, we could still triangulate, if we assumed the target was on the surface of the sphere.

Absolutely. I tried to agree with you from the start, but managed to entangle myself in words and lousy math. ;-)

[Yora]

The issue is divinations, which allow wizards to know what they'll be facing, hence the term "scry-and-die".

This I have been wondering for a long time: Which spells are that supposed to be?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

This I have been wondering for a long time: Which spells are that supposed to be?

Generally, Scry n Die is for a single, specific target. In such cases, Legend Lore and Discern Location are both wonderful ways to gain all kinds of information about said target, including the current location.

[Wings of Peace]

This I have been wondering for a long time: Which spells are that supposed to be?

In the most extreme cases a Wizard would Gate in an Elemental Weird which can cast a handful of divinations as free actions. The Wizard would order the elemental to search for the target as a free action, the Weird would do this as a free action, and then communicate back to the Wizard what it has found out as a free action. Thus in 3 turns (turn 3 being the turn the Wizard acts after receiving information) we are killing something.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In the most extreme cases a Wizard would Gate in an Elemental Weird which can cast a handful of divinations as free actions. The Wizard would order the elemental to search for the target as a free action, the Weird would do this as a free action, and then communicate back to the Wizard what it has found out as a free action. Thus in 3 turns (turn 3 being the turn the Wizard acts after receiving information) we are killing something.

You forgot the intervening buffing rounds. You know, your cleric going 'Death Ward/Freedom of Movement/Shield of Faith/Barkskin (plant domain)/etc...' with GMW/MV/Mind Blank being assumed to have been cast at the beginning of the day. You know, so you are flat Immune To Save or Lose, with an AC of 'good luck', so that if your target doesn't die in the surprise round, there's very little he could do anyways.

[Wings of Peace]

You forgot the intervening buffing rounds. You know, your cleric going 'Death Ward/Freedom of Movement/Shield of Faith/Barkskin (plant domain)/etc...' with GMW/MV/Mind Blank being assumed to have been cast at the beginning of the day. You know, so you are flat Immune To Save or Lose, with an AC of 'good luck', so that if your target doesn't die in the surprise round, there's very little he could do anyways.

P'shaw, real Wizards are always persistently buffed. I mean, the only other thing to do is read in their tower. Hell, persistent buffing is probably the highlight of their day.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

P'shaw, real Wizards are always persistently buffed. I mean, the only other thing to do is read in their tower. Hell, persistent buffing is probably the highlight of their day.

Some of those aren't wizard spells. That'd be an awful lot of shennanigans to get everything down.

Then again, if it's JUST the wizard, then Persist Improved Mirror Image can replace any of the AC boosting spells. You'd just need a source of Death Ward (since you can get Freedom of Movement from a Ring).

[Yora]

I started a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11600919#post11600919). This might become a lot more complicated.

[tyckspoon]

Then again, if it's JUST the wizard, then Persist Improved Mirror Image can replace any of the AC boosting spells. You'd just need a source of Death Ward (since you can get Freedom of Movement from a Ring).

+1 Soulfire Mithral buckler. Mithral removes the ASF, bucklers don't interfere with anything meaningful, it costs a little bit less than the Ring of Freedom, and you get a couple free points of AC on the side.

[JaronK]

Your method still has issues with language. Is the number 3 a single word in Chondathan? After all, none of the numerals in Rapanui are single words. It happens in a few other languages, including ancient Greek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers_in_various_languages
IMO if there's cases of it happening in the real world, it's a valid trick to pull by the DM.

Again, imagine you are a genius wizard. Can you truly think of no solution to this? I can. First, I'm writing my question down on a piece of paper first, so it doesn't take longer than the cast time to ask the question "what's the solution to X on this paper?"

Second, I'm going to have X be predefined as a value "as expressed in [some valid way of expression]." That could be 64 bit encoding, that could be a language where it takes only word to say any number up to some arbitrary value, that could even be a language I've created and written down for the purpose of expressing math in single words (if I'm asking a god of logic, I bet he'd find that very amusing). Heck, I can define a language for expressing binary numbers as a single word very easily... every 1 is an "eel" sound and every 0 is an "oh" sound, so "eeloheeleeloh" is 10110 (meaning first answer yes, second no, third and fourth yes, fifth no). Now a single word can express any answer, and all I have to do is ask "what is the solution to the equation I've written down, expressed in Binareize?"

Seriously, think these through before assuming the Wizard doesn't.

As for what happens if you get a bad roll and get a bad answer? Checksums. I've already pointed that out. This will invalidate any random answer if done right. Might knock out a few lies too. And by asking the same question each day (you asked what would happen in two days today, tomorrow ask what happens tomorrow), you're checking multiple times, thus further reducing error risk.

And what about annoying deities? Don't ask the same one each time. Ask deities that approve of what you're doing (if you're using this knowledge to destroy a necromancer, ask Pelor. If you're using it to destroy an evil army, ask Heironius. And so on). Not that hard, folks.

JaronK

[Karoht]

Two, V is rather verbose. She/He could have worded the Contingency in such a way that it's nearly impossible to activate.Hilarity ensues?
EDIT-Would be be an excuse to have those lawyers show up again?



Three, you can only have one Contingency active at a time (via the spell, and there's no indication that V has Craft Contingent Spell). It may just be a Contingency for a situation that hasn't come up yet. Four, Contingency is hell on a storyline.I think contingency would just come across poorly in the story. V's about to die, BOOM contingency goes off and saves the day. I think most fans would call cheese on that one.

Also, has no one has pointed out the Invisibility ploy? What Wizard would not have Glitterdust prepared for just such an occasion? I find that a bit odd personally, but meh, it's a story.

[Psyren]

I think Contingency would be a DEM too (unless we saw him cast it ahead of time) but it wouldn't be the first time V was saved by one of those anyway.

But he doesn't even need Contingency - as I said before, we already know that he knows the ultimate reactive spell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm) No matter WHAT you're up against, this one has a use. And he wastes it on digging.

[MrRigger]

I wouldn't say she/he wastes it on digging. Let's face it, one of the many uses for Polymorph is to acquire a swim/fly/climb/burrow speed. V uses it to gain a burrow speed. I wouldn't say that's wasting it.

There's also the fact that in a fight, V reacts certain ways. Even when trying to find new ways to win a fight, V still falls back on Evocation to kill the enemies. Not Transmutation. Being that V is an Evoker, and was trained by a high level (if not epic level) Evoker, she/he probably thinks the best way to win fights, in general, is with Evocation, despite numerous situations where this has been proven not to be true. Human nature (or in this case, Elven Nature) is hard to overcome. The fact that V has even admitted that Evocation isn't always the right answer is a pretty big step for him/her.

MrRigger

[Makiru]

~stuff~

OK, this has been bugging me with every answer you've made in this thread. You assume that the player is as smart as the character they're playing. While this is apparently the case for you (why you're spending your time on a message board for a roleplaying game and not curing cancer with the rest of MENSA is beyond me), most people are not going to be that smart at the spur of the moment, or even with preparation.

Also, you assume that methods and numerological schemes primarily founded in the 19th and 20th centuries would even be a known factor in a fantasy setting. Yes, you mentioned making your own language for the use of circumventing the one-word clause with your binary tree, but this assumes a) the deity you ask cares that you went to all that effort, and b) the DM just doesn't roll on the random chart like he's supposed to.

So, I reiterate: Unlike you, most players are not super geniuses. They are not going to think of a workaround to a problem such as this at the spur of the moment.

And now, I wait for you to completely dismantle my argument with a five-page document you thought of while I was writing this very post.

[Kantolin]

I believe the logic is that the character is smart enough to think of these things.

Many of the 'This spell actually does nothing!' responses are 'Well, you didn't think of X'. In a normal game, a reasonable response is, "My Wizard has an Int of 26, can we just assume he did?"

But if the DM is insisting, 'No, you can't do that since numbers are multiple words long' or similar, then the player apparantly does have to think of these things despite not being as smart as their character.

Now, these complaints are primarily an attempt to use DM fiat and pretend that's how the spell works, as the spell is overpowered. Where's that awesome Zaq quote... if you're going to ban something because it's overpowered, that's perfectly okay - just say 'This needs to be banned because it's wildly overpowered' or something. Perhaps say, 'Be aware: Contact other plane will work only moderately frequently as I don't like my PCs being able to get at all the information, but sometimes it will be okay, talk to me first'. A lot of DMs near me do that for glitterdust, for example, and also invisibility.

But it's sitting right there being used for this purpose, so I don't completely understand the point of saying, "Nah, divinations can't be used to tell the future because my DM wouldn't let me!" (Or 'I as a DM wouldn't allow it'), as the spells are right there in core being logical solutions. :P

Edit: Unless, perhaps, JaronK does have an intelligence of 26 and is just showing the rest of us how he would think. :P If so, 'Let's see if JaronK has a way around this!' could actually be a useful method for determining what someone with int 26 doesn't know of.

[navar100]

Guys, seriously, you're an Int 26+ Wizard. You can figure out how to phrase the question properly. In fact, you might as well ask it in base 36... which means an answer of "z" means 26. If you need to, lay out the code to be used for the answer in the question.

Instead of assuming you're playing stupid, figure out something that works. Remember, you can cast this spell once a day while you figure out what's going to make it work properly, and continue to do so as long as it takes. And you can do so asking gods that are either ambivalent to this process or in favor of it (gods of Mechanicus might find this a very interesting and appropriate tactic indeed). For whatever objection you're going to bring up, try and figure out how a super genius would solve the problem before deciding it's a deal breaker.

In the end, a DM who makes the god answer "Complicated" or "Irrelevant" or whatever is just nerfing the spell, but by RAW this trick does work just fine. I don't use this trick in real play simply because it kills the story (for the same reason V doesn't do something like this), but if a DM starts arbitrarily pulling stuff like answering "Irrelevant" and claiming it's RAW even though it's obviously not RAI, I just start building towers around myself and not adventuring and saying the rules let me do that too (or just leave the game, of course). There's a contract between player and DM to let the story be built between them. Railroading players around and making everything not work for them when it's not convenient is something you don't do, just as players don't decide not to follow the story entirely. We build the story together. The DM is in the end as powerless as the players... either side can always leave the game.

JaronK

Exactly! So just because a player has a wizard character does not mean he pwns the game. The class has the potential, yes, but that's on paper. It's an amusing exercize of theoretical thought of Pun-Puns. In actual game play, for the game to be happening at all such things just do not happen. The wizard (or CoDzilla for that matter) are just not so invincible.


Looking at CoP from where it's coming from in earlier editions too, it's obvious that the spell is intended to impose a risk of failure and severe consequences for failure. That the take 10 rules make it completely safe is a design oversight. Learning a new spell is similar: there's supposed to be a risk of failure when a wizard copies a new spell into his spellbook, but the take 10 rule makes it 100% certain unless the wizard has a terrible Spellcraft modifier. Take 10 was supposed to eliminate trivial rolls and keep the action moving, but it's obvious that it had some unintended consequences.

By RAW, CoP is a safe spell to cast via take 10, but when applying RAI or (gasp) house rules, it clearly needs a die roll.

It is a feature, not a bug, that your character can become just that good as to not be able to fail at something. For a spellcaster to learn to a new spell, it's a Duh! thing they are supposed to be able to do without any problems. Whether the spell Contact Other Plane specifically should allow for such no risk is more of a matter of personal taste given risk of failure is built into the spell. However, since not even a Natural 1 is an autofail and you can theoretically have a high enough modifier such that a 1 succeeds, the possibility of no risk Contact Other Plane already exists, so it was intended all along for risk free casting. Even then that doesn't necessarily 100% proof the possibility of you being lied to, only protection against loss of spellcasting.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't say she/he wastes it on digging. Let's face it, one of the many uses for Polymorph is to acquire a swim/fly/climb/burrow speed. V uses it to gain a burrow speed. I wouldn't say that's wasting it.

By "waste it" I mean "not using it in combat."

Look at the fight with Z for instance. Z clearly has no dispels prepped and is relying on his SR to win the battle for him. One casting of Poly would have ignored that protection, wrecked the Drow and saved V a ton of spell slots. Even with just core forms, he could have gone with a Gray Render, Annis or Girallon and still had access to all his magic. Or gone with a Young Dragon, a Roper to hit from 50 feet away, a Hydra etc.

[Rogue Shadows]

So, I reiterate: Unlike you, most players are not super geniuses. They are not going to think of a workaround to a problem such as this at the spur of the moment.

And now, I wait for you to completely dismantle my argument with a five-page document you thought of while I was writing this very post.

Heck, I'll do it for him and with two points rather than five pages.

1) You don't have to be a super genius to figure this stuff out. My IQ is only 120 (I'm smarter than the average bear, but not stupendously so; I don't stand out), and I could easily have figured out everything JaronK is suggesting had I the time or inclination.

2) Just because most players will not think up these solutions, does not mean that they are invalid solutions; further, players do not have to think "how can I get a straight answer from CoP?" but, rather, "I wonder if anyone on the Internet has found out how to get a straight answer from CoP. To Google!"

In other words, you don't have to be as smart as your character, you just have to be smart enough to check if other people are, and hope that those other people play D&D wizards.

[NNescio]

Heck, I'll do it for him and with two points rather than five pages.

1) You don't have to be a super genius to figure this stuff out. My IQ is only 120 (I'm smarter than the average bear, but not stupendously so; I don't stand out), and I could easily have figured out everything JaronK is suggesting had I the time or inclination.

2) Just because most players will not think up these solutions, does not mean that they are invalid solutions; further, players do not have to think "how can I get a straight answer from CoP?" but, rather, "I wonder if anyone on the Internet has found out how to get a straight answer from CoP. To Google!"

In other words, you don't have to be as smart as your character, you just have to be smart enough to check if other people are, and hope that those other people play D&D wizards.

Stanford-Binet or Wechsler? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart)

120 on the latter would be a near-genius.

[Rogue Shadows]

Stanford-Binet or Wechsler? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart)

120 on the latter would be a near-genius.

The former, then; I am most emphatically not a near-genius. If I recall correctly, the ratio given to me was that one person in five has my IQ or better.

Top 20% is nice, but nothing to write home about. I'm pretty sure it means I have an Intelligence score of 12, though, which is nice to know, I guess. I'm just smart enough to realize that I really should have put that last ability boost I got into Wisdom instead of Charisma.

[MrRigger]

By "waste it" I mean "not using it in combat."

Look at the fight with Z for instance. Z clearly has no dispels prepped and is relying on his SR to win the battle for him. One casting of Poly would have ignored that protection, wrecked the Drow and saved V a ton of spell slots. Even with just core forms, he could have gone with a Gray Render, Annis or Girallon and still had access to all his magic. Or gone with a Young Dragon, a Roper to hit from 50 feet away, a Hydra etc.

I misunderstood you then. Sorry about the confusion.

But even in the current situation, I can understand why V didn't use it. I agree, it's a bad idea not to use it, a Dragon would probably be able to ruin Zz's day right now with little trouble. But my other point still stands, I think. V is an Evoker, trained by a high level Evoker and has been able to solve most problems (not all) he/she's come across so far with Evocation magic, and at level 14ish, that's a fair number of problems solved with Evocation magic. So in a dangerous situation with only time to react, V defaults to Evocation magic. I don't think that's unreasonable for the character. It's certainly sub-optimal and likely to get V killed sooner or later, but I think it makes perfect sense for V, the character, to say, "Oh no, we're under attack! Maximized Fireball!", and only after several rounds calm down enough to start thinking and utilize a different course of action.

MrRigger

[Psyren]

Which is really kind of sad, if that's the case. Even Xykon mixes up his tactics. For V, who is not only supposed to be smarter but also explicitly understands the principal failing of wizards, to be so one-dimensional is almost criminal.

[Amphetryon]

Assuming you ask the same entity, I'd say you'll receive exactly the same answer you did the first time--why would they suddenly change the answer they gave you before? Sure, you can ask a new entity, but the spell is not exactly friendly towards them, and I don't think annoying half the pantheon is a great career move.

It takes a 40 Int to even ask questions without risk (assuming you try for the best possibility by asking a greater deity). Also remember that you only get one-word answers. While you might be clever enough to come up with questions where a true one-word reply will be sufficient to actually answer the question, not everyone is.

You will never be absolutely certain of the validity of your answers. You also risk antagonizing a greater deity (or more!) by constantly haranguing them with questions -- the spell specifically says they resent the contact.

Feel free to start listing other options.

Could you explain why I'd be compelled to solicit a second answer from the exact same being that answered the first time, as is your supposition?

Also, we're talking about minimizing risk, not eliminating it. No guts, no glory; if you want 0% chance of failure, adventuring is probably not for you.

[Greenish]

Which is really kind of sad, if that's the case. Even Xykon mixes up his tactics.Xykon can be pretty savvy when he wants. He just prefers messing around, playing the villain and tossing meteor swarms.

[JaronK]

Which is really kind of sad, if that's the case. Even Xykon mixes up his tactics. For V, who is not only supposed to be smarter but also explicitly understands the principal failing of wizards, to be so one-dimensional is almost criminal.

V clearly dumped both Wis and Charisma. V's definitely smart, but egotistical lacks the common sense to switch tactics often. Sure, V could come up with a smart plan like polymorphing into something nasty and just eating the annoying spell resistant brat, or using Assay Resistance before dropping a crippling reflex or fort based spell... but V is just trying to be a better blaster instead of trying for that.


Now, these complaints are primarily an attempt to use DM fiat and pretend that's how the spell works, as the spell is overpowered. Where's that awesome Zaq quote... if you're going to ban something because it's overpowered, that's perfectly okay - just say 'This needs to be banned because it's wildly overpowered' or something. Perhaps say, 'Be aware: Contact other plane will work only moderately frequently as I don't like my PCs being able to get at all the information, but sometimes it will be okay, talk to me first'. A lot of DMs near me do that for glitterdust, for example, and also invisibility.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with a DM saying "this spell does not fit in the campaign world I want or with the story I want, so I'm banning or in some way restricting it." That's fine. That is a mature DM. And it allows the story to continue with proper verisimilitude. You want to change the spell? Go for it. You want to ban it? Fine. But if you start arbitrarily changing the world on the fly and pretending that's just how it works, things go downhill fast.


OK, this has been bugging me with every answer you've made in this thread. You assume that the player is as smart as the character they're playing. While this is apparently the case for you (why you're spending your time on a message board for a roleplaying game and not curing cancer with the rest of MENSA is beyond me), most people are not going to be that smart at the spur of the moment, or even with preparation.

MENSA isn't about curing cancer, it's about people patting themselves on the back for having a trait that makes them feel special and then getting into a group where they can all feel like a part of something. Nothing wrong with it, but it's hardly different from a message board or any other social group based on a similarity, really.

But what I was objecting to was people seeming to be coming up with trivial objections from a mindset of "aha, I can find out a way this couldn't work" instead of the far more useful "hmm, here's an obstacle to consider, how would someone who's smart enough to know a lot figure out a way around this?" This doesn't seem like people being stupid, it seems like people not even trying. I mean seriously, how can someone go with "but the god could give an answer in a language that doesn't have single word big numbers!" without stopping to consider the fact that you could simply specify the language to be used? I'm pretty sure if that person had said "hey, is there a way to deal with the fact that the god might be snarky and ask in the wrong language" they would have been able to answer that question on their own. Likewise, the objection that asking the same question twice of the same source would fail and thus it wouldn't work was made without considering even the possibility of just asking a different source the second time.


Also, you assume that methods and numerological schemes primarily founded in the 19th and 20th centuries would even be a known factor in a fantasy setting.

An Indian fellow named Pingala developed the first known binary math system over 200 years BC. Binary math systems were also independently developed quite a long time ago in China, Western Europe and Africa... interestingly enough, they were used for attempts at divination magic and geomancy. Since D&D is mostly based on a mishmash of 10th century AD to renaissance (with a touch of modern capitalism and social norms thrown in for good measure) I think it's pretty reasonable for some of these super genius Wizards to figure out something similar for use in magic, especially when there's a freaking god of logic you can just ask about these things. I imagine some Wizard must have gotten bored one day and used CoP to ask Primus "What's the best method for getting the most information out of a single word" and got the answer "Binary" and then sat down and figured out what the heck that meant.


Yes, you mentioned making your own language for the use of circumventing the one-word clause with your binary tree, but this assumes a) the deity you ask cares that you went to all that effort, and b) the DM just doesn't roll on the random chart like he's supposed to.

Pingala's system actually did use an almost morse code like language to express his binary system, using short and long syllables. So, you know, this absolutely was done before. Heck, I bet Primus used to sit around playing with binary language just because he appreciated it. Heironeious, probably not so much. And to be clear, I was saying this is something you do for when the DM DOES roll on the chart like he's supposed to. Other posters were claiming that your request would be effectively denied (answering stuff like "Unimportant") when you rolled well. I fully accept that sometimes you'll get BS answers due to bad rolls, but that's what checksums are for.


So, I reiterate: Unlike you, most players are not super geniuses. They are not going to think of a workaround to a problem such as this at the spur of the moment.

I have made no claims about my own intelligence, but rather claimed that people ought to at least try before declaring problems unsolvable. But I bet other players can sit down and think about it, or just use google, or read a thread like this one. I didn't invent this binary idea myself... I'm a computer programmer, and someone else on the internet came up with Binary CoP before I did. Players can do this, and when they do... they shouldn't be punished for it. And I'm sure they can come up with workarounds for various problems like the deity answering in the wrong numerical base.


And now, I wait for you to completely dismantle my argument with a five-page document you thought of while I was writing this very post.

Okay with one page? There really wasn't 5 pages of material to work with here.

JaronK

[Makiru]

Okay with one page? There really wasn't 5 pages of material to work with here.


I was trying to be more tongue-and-cheek with my post rather than insulting, thus the use of exaggerations, blowing things out of proportion and general "smartness" cliches. I'm relieved you decided to take it in stride, and I've been enlightened for it. I just got this "higher than thou" feeling off your posts that bugged me a little bit, but nothing major and you've explained yourself more than adequately.

Now, seeing as casting is probably my worst subject with regards to 3.5, I'll graciously bow out of this thread due to an inability to create, answer, or counter an argument presented.

[Taelas]

Could you explain why I'd be compelled to solicit a second answer from the exact same being that answered the first time, as is your supposition?
You're not compelled to, and I never said you were. Be aware that you're antagonizing however many entities you're asking, however. I did actually address this in the post you quoted.


Also, we're talking about minimizing risk, not eliminating it. No guts, no glory; if you want 0% chance of failure, adventuring is probably not for you.
Then admit the risk. People keep using this spell as a fail-safe way for Wizards to essentially predict anything, anytime, anywhere, and it doesn't work that way.

Whenever someone dares suggest a Wizard may not be crazy prepared for every situation, someone mentions this spell and expects it to be enough. I get tired of it.

[Amphetryon]

You're not compelled to, and I never said you were. Be aware that you're antagonizing however many entities you're asking, however. I did actually address this in the post you quoted.


Then admit the risk. People keep using this spell as a fail-safe way for Wizards to essentially predict anything, anytime, anywhere, and it doesn't work that way.

Whenever someone dares suggest a Wizard may not be crazy prepared for every situation, someone mentions this spell and expects it to be enough. I get tired of it.
Sounds like you have a different definition of "enough" in mind, then?

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Just to beat a dead horse, we were only talking about:
scry (of course the enemy's immune!)
Augury (no retry and failure rate)
Divination (no retry and failure rate)
Commune (your answers are allowed to be lies and have limitations)
Contact other Plane

COP seems the only one that really allows an "of course I prepared the right spell!" wizard. The guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.msg8065#msg8065) has little else that I might