How is Contact Other Plane useful?

[Syrinth]

Hey everyone, I've been trying to understand for a while how Contact Other Plane is useful.

I love the concept, but the actual effect is... somewhat lacking.

I don't see how it's worth the risk. Unless I go for the weakest extraplanar entities, I have a good chance of being mentally crippled for weeks. and if I do go for them, their information is practically useless and I may as well roll randomly.

I mean, the spell only allows for yes/no questions. I just am not seeing the point here...

I figure the only real way is to have a set of question, then spam the spell multiple times and see what the consensus is but...

Currently, I'm playing a Focused Specialist Diviner. My Int is 20 and I'm level 9.

Anyone have any hints on how I can boost my ability check to not bork it up?

[Psyren]

You should have way more than 20 Int at level 9. Heck, you can get 20 Int at level 1 even. If you don't have a headband yet, go for Fox's Cunning.

You should ideally be aiming for Intermediate Deity. and definitely nothing lower than Lesser Deity. That's a 75%-80% chance to not be lied to. Even "I don't know" is preferable to a lie, so you want to minimize the "lie" result as much as possible. You also want to boost your Int check as much as possible to avoid the feeblemind effect - Mechanus Mind (SpC) works well for this.

As far as what to ask, this spell is primarily used to find out what you'll be fighting the next day. "Will I combat undead tomorrow?" for instance, or "Will I combat constructs tomorrow?" DMs usually don't mind something simple/straightforward like that. You can then use the information to know what spells to prepare (and which not to.)

[Slipperychicken]

Can't you simply Take 10 on the intelligence check?

You can also pinpoint objects. Just ask "Is [object] farther north than [landmark]?", "Is [object] south relative to [another landmark]?". Then you just use that to narrow the search area as much as you'd like.

To test whether your DM is being a tool about things like interpreting "north" as "due north", use known landmarks like cities, or ask something like "is [object] more than 200 miles from the north pole?".

[Captnq]

My players once turned into a water weird so he could do unlimited contact other plane then started making crank calls.

"What time is it?"
"Where are the keys to my tower?"
"How much wood can a woodchuck chuck?"
"Should I grow a beard?"
"Does this go with this outfit?"

Stuff like that.

[Psyren]

Can't you simply Take 10 on the intelligence check?

You can't take 10 while threatened, and here there is a Feeblemind if you fail, which is pretty threatening.



You can also pinpoint objects. Just ask "Is [object] farther north than [landmark]?", "Is [object] south relative to [another landmark]?". Then you just use that to narrow the search area as much as you'd like.

Yes, finding objects is another use. (This is particularly handy for tracking down the boss lich's phylactery.)

[mattie_p]

Can't you simply Take 10 on the intelligence check?


A character can take 10 on ability checks in general yes, but using the same rules as taking 10 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10).


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

I personally consider the threat of a feeble-mind affect to preclude taking 10, but others do not. Up to the individual DM.

[unseenmage]

You can't take 10 while threatened, and here there is a Feeblemind if you fail, which is pretty threatening.



Yes, finding objects is another use. (This is particularly handy for tracking down the boss lich's phylactery.)

No threatened literally means in combat.
The feeblemind effect would be a consequence for failure which makes it so you can't take 20.

[mattie_p]

No threatened literally means in combat.
The feeblemind effect would be a consequence for failure which makes it so you can't take 20.

Combat is only one of several distractions or threats that might preclude a character from taking 10. The list is not exhaustive, it calls for interpretation, therefore it is up to the DM.

[Frozen_Feet]

As far as what to ask, this spell is primarily used to find out what you'll be fighting the next day. "Will I combat undead tomorrow?" for instance, or "Will I combat constructs tomorrow?" DMs usually don't mind something simple/straightforward like that. You can then use the information to know what spells to prepare (and which not to.)

I disagree.

Asking about anything that will happen requires the GM to be a psychic if he's allowing any sort of player freedom. Or alternatively, it forces the GM to railroad you so the prophecy can work.

The best questions to ask via COC are those that concern things that are or were, such as "Did X murder Y?" or "Is X home?" Or, if you want to know what you could be up against, you ask "are there [monsters] in this [area]?"

Also, using COC to ascertain things you could find out by mundane means or simple deduction is a waste of spell slot. If you are going to explore an ancient crypt, it's safe to bet you'll be fighting some undead and outsiders, and few Knowledge (History) or Knowledge (Local) checks are much better. Ideally, you are going to use COC to answer questions that would be exceedingly hard to answer otherwise. For example, asking questions of locations (both temporal and spatial) that are out of immediate reach.

[unseenmage]

Combat is only one of several distractions or threats that might preclude a character from taking 10. The list is not exhaustive, it calls for interpretation, therefore it is up to the DM.

Irritating, but yeah technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Also when I posted I didn't see your much more comprehensive response. Way to make me feel like a failure mattie_p. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, makes it real tough to answer questions when the DM discretion answer is such an umbrella response. Worse that it's nearly always a correct response. (Of course how often it is a correct response is entirely up to the individual DM.)

[mattie_p]

But seriously, makes it real tough to answer questions when the DM discretion answer is such an umbrella response. Worse that it's nearly always a correct response. (Of course how often it is a correct response is entirely up to the individual DM.)

If you frequent the RAW Q&A thread, as I do, you might see how seldom that pops up as the correct answer to a specific question.

[Story]

Even if for some weird reason the DM doesn't allow taking 10, it's pretty easy to make the check negligible.

Consider spells like Insight of Good Fortune and Adept Spirit.

[unseenmage]

If you frequent the RAW Q&A thread, as I do, you might see how seldom that pops up as the correct answer to a specific question.

Oh I do frequent the RAW Q&A thread. And it tends to be the go-to response to quite a few questions. But yes, I see your point. But at the same time mine is also valid.

[Psyren]

I disagree.

Asking about anything that will happen requires the GM to be a psychic if he's allowing any sort of player freedom. Or alternatively, it forces the GM to railroad you so the prophecy can work.

I don't see a problem with that. After all, a "yes" response then forces the player to burn more questions trying to narrow things down further, and if they don't you have plenty of leeway.

And one could argue that wanting to be railroaded is the point of divining the future (assuming the spell is used for that purpose.)

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't see a problem with that. After all, a "yes" response then forces the player to burn more questions trying to narrow things down further, and if they don't you have plenty of leeway.

If you don't see the problem with it, then you obviously don't use a lot of random generation and encounters. I do. Questions on the future can, in the worst case, force me to roll several times where I otherwise would only need to roll once. That's slows down the game. The other option is for me to become psychic, which is unfortunately not possible. :smalltongue:


And one could argue that wanting to be railroaded is the point of divining the future (assuming the spell is used for that purpose.)

... in almost all cases, the point is to avoid some bad fate, but that becomes paradoxical under the rules because if you asked, then the divined future must happen.

[Psyren]

If you don't see the problem with it, then you obviously don't use a lot of random generation and encounters. I do. Questions on the future can, in the worst case, force me to roll several times where I otherwise would only need to roll once. That's slows down the game. The other option is for me to become psychic, which is unfortunately not possible. :smalltongue:

I prefer to plan encounters in advance broadly and then make on-the-fly tweaks. For example, I might plan to have the PCs ambushed by bandits as they camp for the night, but if they trek into the swamp those bandits will be lizardfolk tribesmen, and if they take ship it'll be pirates.

I do randomly generate some encounters as well. But there is still a range. If the PCs are investigating a catacomb, chances are they'll run into undead, or some nasty plant or ooze. So even if I haven't planned every detail out it'll be a safe bet for me to say "sure."


... in almost all cases, the point is to avoid some bad fate, but that becomes paradoxical under the rules because if you asked, then the divined future must happen.

The funny thing about prophecy is that it doesn't have to turn out the way the PC assumes it will. Particularly when he's only getting one-word answers to his questions, it's very easy to make them draw incorrect conclusions if that's what you really want.

Note also that "maybe" and "irrelevant" are both explicitly valid responses. So you're not setting anything in stone if you don't want to, really.

[Frozen_Feet]

But if a prophecy sets nothing in stone, it defeats the purpose of a prophecy in the first place. I have no problems playing IF/THEN logic games, but I find the exercise mostly pointless when the whole game can be sidestepped by avoiding asking of the future. Plenty of useful information can be gleaned from things that are or were, including "avoid monsters", without having to get into temporal paradoxes, self-fulfilling prophecies or the like.

[kabreras]

Combat is only one of several distractions or threats that might preclude a character from taking 10. The list is not exhaustive, it calls for interpretation, therefore it is up to the DM.

What you are saying is that you can never take 10...

Take 10 on search ? no there might be a trap
Take 10 on climb ? no you might fall
Take 10 on disable device ? no you might fail...

and so on

Witch is the total oposite of the take 10 rule goal

[Psyren]

But if a prophecy sets nothing in stone, it defeats the purpose of a prophecy in the first place.

I think you're still missing my point.

You can use this to set the things in stone that you want to be set in stone. And deliver that information to the players without metagaming it to them or having them stumble across your plot coupon in some immersion-breaking way. (When you get right down to it, metagaming without metagaming is the entire point of the Divination school.)

But if they ask something you'd rather not detail yet - "maybe." Or if they ask something that is clearly leading them down the wrong path - "irrelevant."

In short - the spell is as much for you, as it is for them.

[Frozen_Feet]

I disagree. :smalltongue: COC, when used by PCs, is a player tool. It's about what the players want to know, not what the GM wants them to know.

[mattie_p]

What you are saying is that you can never take 10...

Take 10 on search ? no there might be a trap
Take 10 on climb ? no you might fall
Take 10 on disable device ? no you might fail...

and so on

Witch is the total oposite of the take 10 rule goal

Huh? What is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that the act of making mental contact with a potentially vastly superior intellect, the consequences of such include the risk of stupidity for a period of time, is enough of a threat to preclude taking 10. Much like attempting to bypass a trap after it has been triggered - where if you successfully disable the device you take no damage from the ceiling that is gradually descending upon you.

Before the trap is triggered? Sure. But once that ceiling starts coming down (even if you haven't taken damage yet), that threat is sufficient to preclude taking 10.

[Psyren]

I disagree. :smalltongue: COC, when used by PCs, is a player tool. It's about what the players want to know, not what the GM wants them to know.

You say that like those two things are never in sync. Or that it's impossible to convey the information they need along with the information they want, even using a series of one-word answers.

[shadow_archmagi]

Hey everyone, I've been trying to understand for a while how Contact Other Plane is useful.

I love the concept, but the actual effect is... somewhat lacking.

I don't see how it's worth the risk. Unless I go for the weakest extraplanar entities, I have a good chance of being mentally crippled for weeks. and if I do go for them, their information is practically useless and I may as well roll randomly.

I mean, the spell only allows for yes/no questions. I just am not seeing the point here...

I figure the only real way is to have a set of question, then spam the spell multiple times and see what the consensus is but...

Currently, I'm playing a Focused Specialist Diviner. My Int is 20 and I'm level 9.

Anyone have any hints on how I can boost my ability check to not bork it up?

"Will Yarrick have Fire Resistance tommorow?" BAM! Now you know which spells to prepare for the boss fight.

[Slipperychicken]

If the entity contacted lies to the caster, shouldn't the caster be able to roll Sense Motive against it?

[Psyren]

If the entity contacted lies to the caster, shouldn't the caster be able to roll Sense Motive against it?

Given that just about everything they do is Cha-based, a deity's Bluff mod is likely insane anyway.

[Frozen_Feet]

You say that like those two things are never in sync. Or that it's impossible to convey the information they need along with the information they want, even using a series of one-word answers.

Stuff like that happens, but when it does it is coincidental. You are talking like it's ideal; to me, the ideal is when the players come up with their own questions, useful or not, because it shows they're playing the game.

[Psyren]

Stuff like that happens, but when it does it is coincidental. You are talking like it's ideal; to me, the ideal is when the players come up with their own questions, useful or not, because it shows they're playing the game.

What's ideal is that both the players and DM get some benefit out of the divination instead of just one group or the other. It requires creativity, sure, but most rewarding aspects of the game do.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah, but because I have no in-game stake, the only "benefit" is the out-of-game satisfaction on continuation of the game, to which the actual questions asked and answers given are pretty much irrelevant.

[unseenmage]

Yeah, but because I have no in-game stake, the only "benefit" is the out-of-game satisfaction on continuation of the game, to which the actual questions asked and answers given are pretty much irrelevant.

Your argument could be said to encompass any aspect of or even the entirety of the game though.

[Frozen_Feet]

That's pretty much how it is when I'm a GM, though. I'm an arbiter, first and foremost, I'm not on the side of PCs or NPCs, the players or the setting. Exceptions happen when I'm playing some character, in which case I have the incentive to play the role of said character. In this case, however, the role I have to play (as a GM) is already outlined by the rules of the spell. Warping or breaking them to suit my wants and needs would be cheating, and reduce player agency.

[unseenmage]

That's pretty much how it is when I'm a GM, though. I'm an arbiter, first and foremost, I'm not on the side of PCs or NPCs, the players or the setting. Exceptions happen when I'm playing some character, in which case I have the incentive to play the role of said character. In this case, however, the role I have to play (as a GM) is already outlined by the rules of the spell. Warping or breaking them to suit my wants and needs would be cheating, and reduce player agency.

If that is the case then you're argueing for your particular DMing style and as such against the styles of others. Which has next to nothing to do with the usefullness of the OPs spell question.

[Jack_Simth]

A character can take 10 on ability checks in general yes, but using the same rules as taking 10 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10).Interestingly enough, I can't find taking ten ever referenced in regards to anything other than skill use in the printed rules. Can you point me to where it permits ability checks? It would be useful when you are out of supplies and in a hurry in the wilderness.


I mean, the spell only allows for yes/no questions. I just am not seeing the point here...
You're thinking of Commune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm) on this aspect. Contact Other Plane allows for anything where a one-word answer will do.

As for how useful the spell is: It depends entirely on the DM. The DM that plans most of the world out well in advance? Really useful spell when he's running the game. The DM that ad-hocks basically everything? Not so useful.

It also, of course, depends on how your DM treats questions about the future. If the DM treats the future as fundamentally unknowable, that reduces the usefulness slightly... but not by as much as you might think.

[olentu]

Interestingly enough, I can't find taking ten ever referenced in regards to anything other than skill use in the printed rules. Can you point me to where it permits ability checks? It would be useful when you are out of supplies and in a hurry in the wilderness.

PHB p. 65.

[unseenmage]

Interestingly enough, I can't find taking ten ever referenced in regards to anything other than skill use in the printed rules. Can you point me to where it permits ability checks? It would be useful when you are out of supplies and in a hurry in the wilderness.



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.

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

[Frozen_Feet]

If that is the case then you're argueing for your particular DMing style and as such against the styles of others. Which has next to nothing to do with the usefullness of the OPs spell question.

GMing style makes a huge difference in this case. Psyren's style sneaks in extra information to nudge the course of the game to a direction Psyren wants. At the extreme end of that path, Divination spells only give information the GM wants or needs the players to know. Knowing where your particular GM falls on the sliding scale might very well be the breaking point of whether to use COC at all.

For example, there'd be no point in trying to use it to solve a mystery game, if the GM doesn't want you to solve the problem with magic and makes the effectiveness of the spell reflect that.

[Psyren]

Yeah, but because I have no in-game stake, the only "benefit" is the out-of-game satisfaction on continuation of the game, to which the actual questions asked and answers given are pretty much irrelevant.


Your argument could be said to encompass any aspect of or even the entirety of the game though.

Precisely this. If you're so neutral, why have a plot at all?

As I said before, the entire purpose of the Divination school is to satisfy out-of-game desires. I know X exists, but my character can't find it. I know there's a monster there, but my character can't see it. The DM knows the solution to the puzzle, but s/he can't just tell me. And so on. Your attitude seems to be against all such spells, not just CoP.


GMing style makes a huge difference in this case. Psyren's style sneaks in extra information to nudge the course of the game to a direction Psyren wants. At the extreme end of that path, Divination spells only give information the GM wants or needs the players to know.

Not only are you constructing a very blatant strawman here, you're admitting to doing so ("extreme end.") So why even do it? :smallconfused:


Yeah, but because I have no in-game stake, the only "benefit" is the out-of-game satisfaction on continuation of the game, to which the actual questions asked and answers given are pretty much irrelevant.


Your argument could be said to encompass any aspect of or even the entirety of the game though.

Precisely this. If you're so neutral, why have a plot at all?

As I said before, the entire purpose of the Divination school is to satisfy out-of-game desires. I know X exists, but my character can't find it. I know there's a monster there, but my character can't see it. The DM knows the solution to the puzzle, but s/he can't just tell me. And so on. Your attitude seems to be against all such spells, not just CoP.


GMing style makes a huge difference in this case. Psyren's style sneaks in extra information to nudge the course of the game to a direction Psyren wants. At the extreme end of that path, Divination spells only give information the GM wants or needs the players to know.

Not only are you constructing a very blatant strawman here, you're admitting to doing so ("extreme end.") So why even do it? :smallconfused:

Obviously I will answer the question the players ask. Like any good Oracle would. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0331.html) That doesn't mean they're asking the right questions or that they will get all the information they need. The spell can work for both of our goals - mine to challenge them and create a memorable plot, and theirs to accomplish their individual and party objectives.

[Frozen_Feet]

Precisely this. If you're so neutral, why have a plot at all?

If by "plot" you mean "preconceived narrative structure", then it's rather the point that I don't have one. I have a game scenario, and "plot" is whatever the players do with it.


As I said before, the entire purpose of the Divination school is to satisfy out-of-game desires. I know X exists, but my character can't find it. I know there's a monster there, but my character can't see it. The DM knows the solution to the puzzle, but s/he can't just tell me. And so on. Your attitude seems to be against all such spells, not just CoP.

Nope. I'm not opposed to any such spells; it's the thought that the GM's desires are the ones that need to be satisfied that I'm opposed against. COP is a player tool primarily, and GM tool only coincidentally (when answering PC COP) or secondarily (when using COP through NPCs).


Not only are you constructing a very blatant strawman here, you're admitting to doing so ("extreme end.") So why even do it? :smallconfused:

Uh, no. I specifically said it's a sliding scale. Depending on how much the GM is biased towards a specific plot, the usefullness of divination spells changes. The thought of GMs only allowing what they want to be known is not hypothetical, it's one of the most common counter-arguments to "game-breaking" potential of divination spells. You are somewhere in the middle, probably closer to me than you are to the other extreme, but you have clearly expressed some bias towards the course of the game.

Divination spells are tools for the players and their characters. They are for them to pry out information of the game scenario. The stronger the bias of a GM is, the more it narrows down what kind of divination spells are viable. Depending on how a GM makes this manifest, it may reduce availability of meaningful information (because the players aren't allowed to draw their own conclusions), or reduce amount of available information, period (the GM only answers "irrelevant" to things outside the scope of the scenario).

D&D started as a hidden map game, and the point of divination was to inquire details of that map. Once the map starts changing based on what questions you asked (like you suggested, Psyren), then it becomes hide-and-seek with a schrodinger's cat. This alters what kinds of questions you would even want to ask, and thus can make or break COP.

[Psyren]

If by "plot" you mean "preconceived narrative structure", then it's rather the point that I don't have one. I have a game scenario, and "plot" is whatever the players do with it.

So you wing every detail? No preparation at all?

Again, this implies that no divination can ever work because everything not already known is in flux.



Nope. I'm not opposed to any such spells; it's the thought that the GM's desires are the ones that need to be satisfied that I'm opposed against. COP is a player tool primarily, and GM tool only coincidentally (when answering PC COP) or secondarily (when using COP through NPCs).

You said: "Asking about anything that will happen requires the GM to be a psychic if he's allowing any sort of player freedom. Or alternatively, it forces the GM to railroad you so the prophecy can work." To which I replied, that neither of these has to be the case - you can know what will happen in a very broad sense, and impart that insight to your players, but the very nature of the spell forbids detail anyway so you needn't worry about divulging a set track that you then have to stick to - provided you are creative enough.

And if the questions get too specific, you can answer "maybe" - because X happening depends on whether the players make it happen. No one loses agency.

[QUOTE=Frozen_Feet;16064950]
Uh, no. I specifically said it's a sliding scale. Depending on how much the GM is biased towards a specific plot, the usefullness of divination spells changes.

This is an example of what I mean when I say creativity is key. Coming up with a variety of plot hooks (not just one linear path) and then, depending on the player's questions (and actions!) selecting the sequence of events that fits best and tweaking it slightly. Which brings me back to my previous example of planning an encounter (say, with brigands) and all the different ways that encounter can be reflavored. Or even shelved until a future session/campaign, if necessary.

[georgie_leech]

So you wing every detail? No preparation at all?

Again, this implies that no divination can ever work because everything not already known is in flux.



Or he could have a situation where "If the party goes here, X, Y, or Z could happen, while if they go over there instead, it's more likely they'll encounter W, and I don't know how they'll choose to interact with V?" A lack of a railroad plot doesn't mean everything is improvised on the fly.

[Psyren]

Or he could have a situation where "If the party goes here, X, Y, or Z could happen, while if they go over there instead, it's more likely they'll encounter W, and I don't know how they'll choose to interact with V?" A lack of a railroad plot doesn't mean everything is improvised on the fly.

To which the answer would be "maybe" since it depends on where they go - I covered that one.

But if the question was - "If we go to X, will we encounter Y?" That would be pretty straightforward.

[Frozen_Feet]

So you wing every detail? No preparation at all?


"Preparation" is different from what you mean by "plot". To use a chess metaphor, laying out the pieces on table doesn't mean I've decided which side is going to win, or even that I'm going to play the game myself. I can get very detailed with my preparations, but they deal with objects, locations and probable events, not the narrative structure or sequence that links them together.

A good example is, again, random encounters. I may have very detailed character or event, but due to the randomness, can't tell if and when it will come to play, or how my players will interact with it. Too many unknowns.

This happens in other randomized parts of the game as well, notably, combat. When a single combat can take several dozen rolls to complete, you'd have to be psychic to predict exact sequence of events. The only other option is to plain abandon RAW and cheat to get the game in line with a prophecy.


Again, this implies that no divination can ever work because everything not already known is in flux.

Uh, I already outlined what kinds of questions do work: those that ask how things are or were. Remember the hidden map. There are things that are or were that are known to GM/gods, but not the players/PCs. Very obvious short-term predictions can also be made, such as Augury's weal/woe distinction concerning a trapped chest (opening the chest without precautions will obviously lead to woe).

But yes, things being in constant flux is precisely why questions regarding the future are not the best ones. If you introduce dice to a game and actually allow them to mean something, this can't be avoided.

[georgie_leech]

To which the answer would be "maybe" since it depends on where they go - I covered that one.

But if the question was - "If we go to X, will we encounter Y?" That would be pretty straightforward.

But then Y could choose to leave X if they learn the PC's are heading there. I'm with Frozen on this one. Questions dealing with the future are messy; a better question would be "Are there Y at location X?" because it deals with things that are in principle knowable (If the PC's were at X at this exact moment, they would/would not find Y) and are thus certain.

[Syrinth]

You should have way more than 20 Int at level 9. Heck, you can get 20 Int at level 1 even. If you don't have a headband yet, go for Fox's Cunning.

You should ideally be aiming for Intermediate Deity. and definitely nothing lower than Lesser Deity. That's a 75%-80% chance to not be lied to. Even "I don't know" is preferable to a lie, so you want to minimize the "lie" result as much as possible. You also want to boost your Int check as much as possible to avoid the feeblemind effect - Mechanus Mind (SpC) works well for this.

As far as what to ask, this spell is primarily used to find out what you'll be fighting the next day. "Will I combat undead tomorrow?" for instance, or "Will I combat constructs tomorrow?" DMs usually don't mind something simple/straightforward like that. You can then use the information to know what spells to prepare (and which not to.)

How should my Int be way above 20?

Now admittedly, it should be 22. I'm a rogue/wizard/unseen seer and I made the questionable choice of having 16 starting Int, but I don't see how it would be much more higher than that... I can't quite afford the headband +4 yet, but I do have the +2.

I suppose if I think of it in terms of a checklist of yes/no questions... Although the fact that the information is not reliable no matter what seriously bothers me.

[Slipperychicken]

How should my Int be way above 20?

Now admittedly, it should be 22.

Start with 18 base stat, be a +Int race like Gray Elf (+2), apply level-up bonuses to that (+1 at 4th, +1 again at 8th), have a +4 Headband. That gives you 26 Int. With an Int mod of +6, you could theoretically Take 10 and ask Greater Deities.

And since you said in the OP you were playing a "focused specialist Diviner", we assumed that you were playing a straight-up fullcasting Wizard build, and would therefore able to pump Intelligence as high as you could get it without caring about any other stats aside from Con and Dex.



I suppose if I think of it in terms of a checklist of yes/no questions... Although the fact that the information is not reliable no matter what seriously bothers me.

Assuming you have a good (+6) Intelligence bonus, your DM follows the rules for CoP, you can take 10, repeat questions, and are willing to use some statistics, it's actually quite reliable.

Just use the table to determine what results you ought to get (i.e. for Intermediate Deity, you get 73% true, 8% don't know, 17% lie, 2% Random), and compare the actual results to that. The answer you get most often (73+% of the time) should be the true result.

[Psyren]

But then Y could choose to leave X if they learn the PC's are heading there.

If they're intelligent enough to react that way, inclined to avoid confrontation and there's a chance they can get tipped off - if all those factors are true, the answer becomes "maybe." But if any prove not to be true the answer becomes a clear "yes" - they'll be there.



I'm with Frozen on this one. Questions dealing with the future are messy; a better question would be "Are there Y at location X?" because it deals with things that are in principle knowable (If the PC's were at X at this exact moment, they would/would not find Y) and are thus certain.

Which means divinations about the future don't work in either of your games, and that's fine. So long as the players know that up front.


How should my Int be way above 20?

Now admittedly, it should be 22. I'm a rogue/wizard/unseen seer and I made the questionable choice of having 16 starting Int, but I don't see how it would be much more higher than that... I can't quite afford the headband +4 yet, but I do have the +2.

That's what I meant, start with 18/20. Also, cast Fox's Cunning before you cast CoP - that will give a +4 bonus, which eclipses your headband. Add in the 2 Int bonuses you got at 4 and 8 and you should at 24-26, not 20.

Even starting with a 16 though, Fox's Cunning will get you to 22.

[Psyren]

"Preparation" is different from what you mean by "plot". To use a chess metaphor, laying out the pieces on table doesn't mean I've decided which side is going to win, or even that I'm going to play the game myself.

The moves in chess are fixed though, and some are rather easy to predict before they happen. Placing their King in check for instance sharply restricts the moves they can take. The chaos of the future crystallizes.



This happens in other randomized parts of the game as well, notably, combat. When a single combat can take several dozen rolls to complete, you'd have to be psychic to predict exact sequence of events. The only other option is to plain abandon RAW and cheat to get the game in line with a prophecy.

I don't recall saying anything about "predicting the exact sequence of events." As I said before, "yes/no" are for broad strokes, while very specific circumstances get a "maybe" unless they are truly fixed points.

"Will I get attacked in the future?" would very likely be a yes.
"Will I get attacked tomorrow?" could be yes, no, or maybe depending on where the PC is (hostile territory for instance), what options they have for long-distance movement, and other factors.
"Will I get attacked tomorrow at 9 am by a halfling wielding a knife" would likely be maybe (i.e. if they could set up those specific circumstances somehow) or even possibly no, if there was no way to engineer them (the PC is immobilized far from any such assailants for example.) All of these are valid questions and valid responses.



Uh, I already outlined what kinds of questions do work: those that ask how things are or were.

Right, so as I said to georgie - Divinations have no chance of telling the future in your games, and that's fine, but I see no reason to close off potential avenues of storytelling. Prophecy and oracular consultation are fantasy staples.


If you introduce dice to a game and actually allow them to mean something, this can't be avoided.

I find that "X can't be done" or "X can't be avoided" are statements devoid of creativity. It's perhaps more accurate to say that you can't do something, or you can't avoid something, but extrapolating that to every other DM is unwarranted.

[TuggyNE]

Huh? What is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that the act of making mental contact with a potentially vastly superior intellect, the consequences of such include the risk of stupidity for a period of time, is enough of a threat to preclude taking 10. Much like attempting to bypass a trap after it has been triggered - where if you successfully disable the device you take no damage from the ceiling that is gradually descending upon you.

Before the trap is triggered? Sure. But once that ceiling starts coming down (even if you haven't taken damage yet), that threat is sufficient to preclude taking 10.

The problem is that this identical reasoning also precludes taking 10 on Climb checks, where failure by at least 5 means you fall. And being unable to reliably climb moderately difficult pitches seems rather silly to me. (I seem to recall a specific rules example of Climbing allowing taking 10, but I don't have the citation handy.)

[olentu]

The problem is that this identical reasoning also precludes taking 10 on Climb checks, where failure by at least 5 means you fall. And being unable to reliably climb moderately difficult pitches seems rather silly to me. (I seem to recall a specific rules example of Climbing allowing taking 10, but I don't have the citation handy.)

That would be page 65 of the PHB.

[mattie_p]

The problem is that this identical reasoning also precludes taking 10 on Climb checks, where failure by at least 5 means you fall. And being unable to reliably climb moderately difficult pitches seems rather silly to me. (I seem to recall a specific rules example of Climbing allowing taking 10, but I don't have the citation handy.)

Also, creatures with a climb speed can take 10, even when threatened. There is a reason why skill mastery is such a great ability. I am unaware of any similar ability that allows one to take 10 on ability checks under adverse circumstances.

[unseenmage]

I find that "X can't be done" or "X can't be avoided" are statements devoid of creativity. It's perhaps more accurate to say that you can't do something, or you can't avoid something, but extrapolating that to every other DM is unwarranted.

Seconding this. Strongly.

[fluke1993]

As far as the whole "take 10 while threatened" thing goes (please note that none of this is RAW and is merely how I would chose to handle this);

I see taking 10 as basically going about something the way you always do, not taking any risks and not leaving anything to chance. A rouge breaking into someones house takes 10 to pick the lock and a blacksmith hammering out a stock sword takes 10 on the crafting check. In these situations, there is no pressure. In combat, the main cause of threat, the biggest difference on a skill check is pressure. You have to get the door open because if you don't the orc is going to lop off your head, you can't slip on the grease because doing so would give your opponent a large tactical advantage. Note that this pressure that would prevent you from taking 10 is never a natural consequence of failing the skill check itself. Risking a fall while climbing is part of the territory but if you slip in combat and falling prone next to an opponent has consequences beyond merely slipping and falling. If I am unsure whether or not to treat a player as threatened, I ask what the consequences of the consequences of a failed check are. If they are worse than the normal consequences of the check would be then I am far more likely to consider them threatened.

I may be wrong but failing an Int check normally doesn't have any consequences for failure beyond not getting the information sought. In the case of COP however failing the Int check can result in a hefty Int penalty. As such I would rule that you are threatened during the check and cannot take 10.

[Sith_Happens]

So you wing every detail? No preparation at all?

Again, this implies that no divination can ever work because everything not already known is in flux.

No, it just changes when you have to make up the thing being asked about.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Psyren: the problem with D&D is that because of dice, the chaos crystallizes much slower, or instead the chaos increases. But even in chess, predicting your opponent's moves can become harder rather than easier depending on what you do.

Those "maybe" answers are not very useful because of that, because anything that's possible but not certain becomes a "maybe". Maybe the game will checkmate on the next turn, maybe not. Maybe a stone will fall on my head tomorrow, maybe not. Without knowing the exact probabilities, such answers are near-useless.

On the other hand, asking "are there undead in this area?" allows me to predict that maybe I will be fighting them, but now I also now there are undead and where.

It's not that the future in my games absolutely can't be predicted. It's that in a probabilistic game where multiple moves and consequences "maybe" is insufficient information, and any question answerable by "maybe" is worse than questions answerable by more certain terms.

This is a matter of mathematics; what you speak as "creativity" is just the GM fudging the rolls to replace probability with certainty. Which is all well and good if both parties are okay with building railroads where there previously might not have been any, but what if either party is trying to avoid that? Like I explained above, many "maybe wills" can be extrapolated by the players from things that are or were. The reverse, however, is not true. A "maybe" to "will I get attacked tomorrow?" will not allow me to deduce who is going to attack me, or how, or where, or why.

[TuggyNE]

As far as the whole "take 10 while threatened" thing goes (please note that none of this is RAW and is merely how I would chose to handle this);

I see taking 10 as basically going about something the way you always do, not taking any risks and not leaving anything to chance. A rouge breaking into someones house takes 10 to pick the lock and a blacksmith hammering out a stock sword takes 10 on the crafting check. In these situations, there is no pressure. In combat, the main cause of threat, the biggest difference on a skill check is pressure. You have to get the door open because if you don't the orc is going to lop off your head, you can't slip on the grease because doing so would give your opponent a large tactical advantage. Note that this pressure that would prevent you from taking 10 is never a natural consequence of failing the skill check itself. Risking a fall while climbing is part of the territory but if you slip in combat and falling prone next to an opponent has consequences beyond merely slipping and falling. If I am unsure whether or not to treat a player as threatened, I ask what the consequences of the consequences of a failed check are. If they are worse than the normal consequences of the check would be then I am far more likely to consider them threatened.

Good enough so far.


I may be wrong but failing an Int check normally doesn't have any consequences for failure beyond not getting the information sought. In the case of COP however failing the Int check can result in a hefty Int penalty. As such I would rule that you are threatened during the check and cannot take 10.

The thing about Int checks is, they don't have a default definition. Maze, for example, requires a DC 20 Int check to get out, and that's pretty obviously an entirely different thing from the semantics of an untrained Knowledge check or contact other plane's "avoid mindburn" check. In each of these cases, the consequences for failure depend on the specific check, not a general guideline.

So, like Climb, I consider contact other plane's hazard check to be one that carries its danger inherent in the very check itself; there is no threat that is in any way separable from the task, so taking 10 works just fine.

[unseenmage]

@Psyren: the problem with D&D is that because of dice, the chaos crystallizes much slower, or instead the chaos increases. But even in chess, predicting your opponent's moves can become harder rather than easier depending on what you do.

Those "maybe" answers are not very useful because of that, because anything that's possible but not certain becomes a "maybe". Maybe the game will checkmate on the next turn, maybe not. Maybe a stone will fall on my head tomorrow, maybe not. Without knowing the exact probabilities, such answers are near-useless.

On the other hand, asking "are there undead in this area?" allows me to predict that maybe I will be fighting them, but now I also now there are undead and where.

It's not that the future in my games absolutely can't be predicted. It's that in a probabilistic game where multiple moves and consequences "maybe" is insufficient information, and any question answerable by "maybe" is worse than questions answerable by more certain terms.

This is a matter of mathematics; what you speak as "creativity" is just the GM fudging the rolls to replace probability with certainty. Which is all well and good if both parties are okay with building railroads where there previously might not have been any, but what if either party is trying to avoid that? Like I explained above, many "maybe wills" can be extrapolated by the players from things that are or were. The reverse, however, is not true. A "maybe" to "will I get attacked tomorrow?" will not allow me to deduce who is going to attack me, or how, or where, or why.

See here again you're boiling your "problem with D&D" into your problem with this spell.
At no point is the DM's job described as that of a calculator of probabilities. At every point is the DM's job described as being an arbiter of fun and required to fudge rolls when necessary.
Okay, required might be a strong phrase, but then again, maybe not. You keep describing your definition of what a DM is and isn't to justify your position. But it's just that, your description to justify your position, to express your problem with the game.

You keep arguing farther and farther from anything the text(s) says and from information that is useful to the OP. Again, don't get me wrong, you make some interesting points. But it is my advice that you express those in a thread of your own titled as you see fit, with the definition of DM that suits you. As right now you're laying a lot of blanket assumptions and personal bias on this thread that might be better explored in their own venue.

/endrant.

PS. again, no offense. Just pointing out observations.

[Syrinth]

Ok, so ignoring the side argument, and assuming that DM will not allow me to take 10 *which he will not*

What are my best ways to get my Int check up so I can reliably make the DC 14 for intermediate deities?

I'm starting at +5
Fox's Cunning +6
Mechanus Mind +8

Can anyone think of any way for me to make up that difference?

Side note: It cannot require the aid of another person, although I have some UMD so low level spells of other classes are feasible.

In theory I think my familiar might be able to help, but his int is at a -1 so his aid another check wouldn't be too likely to help...

[Krobar]

My players once turned into a water weird so he could do unlimited contact other plane then started making crank calls.

"What time is it?"
"Where are the keys to my tower?"
"How much wood can a woodchuck chuck?"
"Should I grow a beard?"
"Does this go with this outfit?"

Stuff like that.

lol.

I have an epic bard that took Improved Spell Capacity and Spell Knowledge a bunch of times (can cast several 7th, 8th and 9th level spells per day), and uses Limited Wish to duplicate Commune. He figures that if he asks Sharess over for dinner and an orgy enough times, eventually she'll show up.

[Story]

Adept Spirit gives you another +2.

[unseenmage]

Ok, so ignoring the side argument, and assuming that DM will not allow me to take 10 *which he will not*

What are my best ways to get my Int check up so I can reliably make the DC 14 for intermediate deities?

I'm starting at +5
Fox's Cunning +6
Mechanus Mind +8

Can anyone think of any way for me to make up that difference?

Side note: It cannot require the aid of another person, although I have some UMD so low level spells of other classes are feasible.

In theory I think my familiar might be able to help, but his int is at a -1 so his aid another check wouldn't be too likely to help...

Here's a thread discussing the issue. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194108) Seems they had trouble with the question too.
PAO into higher Int creatures, some horseshoes from Savage Species, and stacking the many possible kinds of bonuses via an Artificer's help using an Infusion specifically designed to change bonus types are all mentioned.

[Psyren]

I don't think you can Aid Another on Ability Checks anyway.

@ Frozen_Feet: "Maybe" answers aren't supposed to be useful. At best, they're basically the DM saying "try asking something else" or "try asking that in a different way." (While "irrelevant" means "you're way off with this line of questioning.") CoP is a mini-game in that regard, a way for the players to get a hint in a way that requires resources and encourages roleplaying. Presumably the group brought that arrogant braniac with the funny-smelling dress along on their expedition so he could help them figure things out.

But the right questions can avoid a maybe. Here are some questions that can easily avoid a "maybe" response for example:

- "If we do X, will Y happen?" Implicit here is that if the PCs don't do X, the future will change.
- "Will there be {meteorological/cosmic event} tomorrow?" Events like weather and planar activity are things outside the PCs' control and thus can be fixed. In Eberron for instance, Plane X will come in alignment on Y date no matter what the PCs do. And knowing there will definitely be a storm tomorrow, the PCs can journey by land instead of by sea.
- "Will an attempt be made on the king's life tomorrow?"; NPC-on-NPC action is fully within your purview.

There's a wide range of what is determinable and all of it can be revealed by the spell. And of course, all of that is in addition to your own examples of revealing information from the present or past.

[Jack_Simth]

Ok, so ignoring the side argument, and assuming that DM will not allow me to take 10 *which he will not*

What are my best ways to get my Int check up so I can reliably make the DC 14 for intermediate deities?

I'm starting at +5
Fox's Cunning +6
Mechanus Mind +8

Can anyone think of any way for me to make up that difference?

Side note: It cannot require the aid of another person, although I have some UMD so low level spells of other classes are feasible.

In theory I think my familiar might be able to help, but his int is at a -1 so his aid another check wouldn't be too likely to help...

What you do:
Polymorph Any Object on your familiar, to turn it into a very high-Int creature. The Sarrukh (serpent kingdoms) has an Int of 30.
Then add Fox's Cunning and Mechanus Mind to your familiar (which will stack with the Int of the Sarrukh), and use Share Spells to cast Contact Other Plane directly on the familiar. That gives your familiar a check of... what, +14? ... which means the familiar can ask a Greater Deity without problems 95% of the time (needs a 2), and an Intermediate Deity 100% of the time (DC 14) (and if your familiar loses, well, you can still cast).

[Sith_Happens]

Or, rerolls. Lots of rerolls.

[Jack_Simth]

Or, rerolls. Lots of rerolls.

Hmm... yes, a luckblade is handy, especially as you know the DC going in and don't need to wait for the DM to call the result. But turning your familiar into a super-intelligent oracle is just hilarious.

[Story]

Insight of Good Fortune gives you another reroll as I mentioned before. So will Fatespinner 4 or Planar Touchstone: Cat/Luck.

But you can easily get a +16 bonus with Fox's Cunning + Adept Spirit + Mechanus Mind, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

[Duke of Urrel]

Here's another question for your DM. Suppose you cast the Contact Other Plane spell, you fail your Intelligence check, your Intelligence and Charisma scores are reduced to 8, and you lose your spellcasting ability. Can you restore your abilities and your spellcasting ability with the help of the Heal spell (or the Greater Restoration spell, the Limited Wish spell, the Miracle spell, or the Wish spell) – just as you could reverse the effect of the Feeblemind spell? Or is this reduction in two of your mental ability scores for one week or more the effect of a divine intervention with no cure known to mortal magic?

This is a question that I would like to submit to the Playground, too.

[Story]

Well Wish can reverse it via the undo misfortune ability if cast soon afterwards.

[Duke of Urrel]

Here's one more thing to ask your DM.

With the Contact Other Plane spell, you can contact a particular alternate plane of existence to "receive advice and information from powers there." That's powers in the plural. So unless you're ambitious (or desperate) enough to address a single particular deity on an Outer Plane, why can't you contact one of the lower-level alternate planes and pose one and the same question to several extraplanar beings? I see nothing in the spell's description that prohibits this. You can't use the Augury spell or the Divination spell in this manner, because with either one of these spells, asking the same question more than once is doomed to elicit the same answer every time, but the Contact Other Plane spell is not subject to this rule, as far as I can tell.

For example, if your caster level is 12, you can ask six questions. Suppose you contact one of the Elemental Planes to keep the risk of reduced Intelligence and Charisma down to a minimum. What's to stop you from asking the same question six times, each time directing your question to a different elemental being? That way, you get six answers, and at least one is likely, by pure random chance, to be the truth. Indeed, you may get several truthful responses. It may also be possible to make a Sense Motive check to detect an intentional lie (because elemental beings, after all, probably don't have as much Bluff skill as deities), which narrows down your possibilities even further.

[StarStuff]

Most of the previous answers suck and lack creative utility. I play a high elf conjurer at CL15. Contact Other Plane is part of my pre-adventure check list. Sample questions include:

1. Can the tarrasque reflect spells?
2. Does the tarrasque have less than 700HP?
3. Where is Elminster's spellbook?
4. Where can I bind an imp familiar?
5. Will there be clouds above the battlefield? (Druid wants to know if she should prepare Call Lightning)
6. Is my fiance cheating on me?
7. Should I prepare counterspell or dispel magic for the dungeon ahead?
8. Which plane will I go to when I die?

Nothing in the description says the answer Must be "Yes," "No," "Irrelevant," or some derivative. You can also consider this a free use of Sending for any caster you've met in the game.

If your DM is running a module, CoP is for preparing the right spells. If your DM is running random encounters and treasure charts, use CoP to create a quest for a specific magic item/spellbook.

I recommend you prepare a preflight check list - that's a list of every interaction the DM should know about in advance. Have an answer for "what would I do if I had a day/hour/minute to prepare?" Keep in mind, some spells are better cast at night, like CoP. Playing a wizard is very time consuming for other players. Conceptually, your check list is like getting consent from the DM without retconning and breaking the fourth wall. That's probably my favorite aspect of CoP - it keeps me honest. Reading the monster manual entry for a creature you just stumbled across in a module is cheating. But if you use divination magic with intention, it makes sense that you know so much about each monster.

If your DM decides against take 10, find a CL6 paladin to cast by while he sleeps. Aura of Protection + High Int + Proficiency = insanity aversion.

Last note: this spell is why I will never doff my Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location.