Would this work against divinations?

[Hazrond]

Frankly the way divinations work from what ive read leaves a rather easy counter, just use a alias, if someone decides to scry on John Finnigan for instance would they not get the real John Finnigan instead of you when you told them the name of some random commoner you met once?

[Extra Anchovies]

Considering that the Spymaster from Complete Adventurer becomes able to do what you're describing as a capstone ability, I think it doesn't entirely work like that.

Also, in the case of Scry, the spell description at no point requires that the target creature's name be known. It's sort of an implied criteria for having secondhand knowledge ("you have heard of the subject", target gets +5 to resist), but you could conceivably have a first-hand ("you have met the subject") or familiar ("you know the subject well") connection to a person without knowing their name. It's possible to get to know someone rather well without ever exchanging names; as long as you know what a person looks like and how to specify that it's them, most long-range divinations would work fine. (e.g. casting Scry on "that elf sorcerer I had dinner with at the Red Dragon Inn last night")

[Hazrond]

(e.g. casting Scry on "that elf sorcerer I had dinner with at the Red Dragon Inn last night")

But what if that person wasnt an elf? what if they were a changeling? or using polymorph? etc.?

[Sith_Happens]

But what if that person wasnt an elf? what if they were a changeling? or using polymorph? etc.?

You still know what they looked like when you saw them last.

[Nettlekid]

If the person wasn't an elf then they'd probably get a better bonus on the save against Scrying since you're under a wrong assumption, but it seems like Scrying works mostly on the "idea" of someone. There's a specific person that you're trying to look at, and that's the one you hone in on.

[Curmudgeon]

There's a specific person that you're trying to look at, and that's the one you hone in on.
You're trying to give a keener edge to the Scry target? :smallconfused:

[jedipotter]

Frankly the way divinations work from what ive read leaves a rather easy counter, just use a alias, if someone decides to scry on John Finnigan for instance would they not get the real John Finnigan instead of you when you told them the name of some random commoner you met once?

The rules are not clear. So it's a DM's call.

The rules somewhat say ''if you know/meet someone, you can automatiacly use divinations on and about that person and they can't do anything to hide, other then the two or three listed magical ways.''

Or you could allow changing shapes and disguises to work normally. This is the way I do it.

[Sith_Happens]

If the person wasn't an elf then they'd probably get a better bonus on the save against Scrying since you're under a wrong assumption, but it seems like Scrying works mostly on the "idea" of someone. There's a specific person that you're trying to look at, and that's the one you hone in on.

This. Just because someone's changed their name and/or appearance doesn't change the fact that you've met them (or heard of them, or gotten to know them), which is what Scrying cares about.

[Nettlekid]

You're trying to give a keener edge to the Scry target? :smallconfused:


“Hone in” (or “hone in on”) is the phrase you want when you don’t know precisely where you’re going, but you’re getting closer. It borrows from the traditional meaning of hone, to sharpen (colloquially, to focus, or to narrow). You hone in when you’re searching for something: the culprit, the undiscovered gene, the source of contamination. You know it’s out there, but you’re still looking for it. You’re honing in.


Thanks for your ever-welcome, readily appreciated, and famously comic wit.

[iTreeby]

so here is a hypothetical

suppose i'm a changeling, I impersonate a prince I know is in another plane for vacation or whatever, using his name and appearance for a month and I meet many people on my adventures. Eventually I grow tired of being nobility/ guy comes back from his planar cruise, and I become "ol' scabby" the friendly mumbler if someone scries for "that awesome prince they met last week" do they find "ol' scabby"?

[backwaterj]

If they're specifically scrying for "that awesome prince they met last week" and not "Prince Albert of Whatsisfaceia" (the former being based on the encounter with the changeling, the latter on the real prince's reputation) I don't see why they wouldn't find "Ol' Scabby".

But again, DM call, since the rules are very hazy about this.

[Nettlekid]

so here is a hypothetical

suppose i'm a changeling, I impersonate a prince I know is in another plane for vacation or whatever, using his name and appearance for a month and I meet many people on my adventures. Eventually I grow tired of being nobility/ guy comes back from his planar cruise, and I become "ol' scabby" the friendly mumbler if someone scries for "that awesome prince they met last week" do they find "ol' scabby"?

If the real prince dressed in rags and pretended to be a vagabond, the Scrying spell would still find that prince, wouldn't it?

I think it depends on the mentality of the person casting the spell. If they were specifically looking for "the person they met last week," then yes, they find you. If they're specifically looking for "the prince," because that's a known figure the Scrying spell would find the real prince. Just like, even if you were disguised as the prince, someone who hadn't met you and cast Scrying to find the prince would find the real one and not you.

EDIT: Swordsaged, and I'm pretty surprised about it.

[jedipotter]

so here is a hypothetical

suppose i'm a changeling, I impersonate a prince I know is in another plane for vacation or whatever, using his name and appearance for a month and I meet many people on my adventures. Eventually I grow tired of being nobility/ guy comes back from his planar cruise, and I become "ol' scabby" the friendly mumbler if someone scries for "that awesome prince they met last week" do they find "ol' scabby"?

RAW, the caster would...for no reason...get ''scabby'' as divinations always see through everything, even if the character does not know it.

I houserule you'd get the impersonation in my game or 'nothing'.

[torrasque666]

RAW, the caster would...for no reason...get ''scabby'' as divinations always see through everything, even if the character does not know it.

I houserule you'd get the impersonation in my game or 'nothing'.
For once, I agree with Jedi. It just doesn't seem right to me that you can have a specific person(name and appearance, etc) in mind, and get what appears to be someone completely different.

[Troacctid]

I think if you scried for "The nice prince fellow I met last week," you would get Ol' Scabby, because you unambiguously identified him as the target of the spell. Nobody else fits that description. However, since the Ol' Scabby identity is completely unfamiliar to you, your knowledge of the subject for the purpose of his will save would be "None" rather than "Firsthand" and he'd get the corresponding +10 bonus to the save--so the chances of success would be appropriately low.

[Sith_Happens]

Thanks for your ever-welcome, readily appreciated, and famously comic wit.

I don't know, I found it quite sharp.:smallwink:


I think if you scried for "The nice prince fellow I met last week," you would get Ol' Scabby, because you unambiguously identified him as the target of the spell. Nobody else fits that description. However, since the Ol' Scabby identity is completely unfamiliar to you, your knowledge of the subject for the purpose of his will save would be "None" rather than "Firsthand" and he'd get the corresponding +10 bonus to the save--so the chances of success would be appropriately low.

Hm, this does sound like a reasonable compromise/outcome. It's hard to say you know someone well when everything you know about them is false.

[Curmudgeon]

“Hone in” (or “hone in on”) is the phrase you want when you don’t know precisely where you’re going, but you’re getting closer. It borrows from the traditional meaning of hone, to sharpen (colloquially, to focus, or to narrow). You hone in when you’re searching for something: the culprit, the undiscovered gene, the source of contamination. You know it’s out there, but you’re still looking for it. You’re honing in.
Your source (http://thebettereditor.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/honing-in-on-homing-in/) goes on to say:
You’re not going to find much support for what I’ve written here out among the reliable sources (although Quinion was moving in the right direction back in 2007). And “home in” still outnumbers “hone in”by about 160:1 in Google, for what that’s worth.

Thanks for your ever-welcome, readily appreciated, and famously comic wit. You may want to hone your own wit a bit sharper, methinks. :smallwink:

Here's an example of the above being confounded (160:1) by Writer's Digest (http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/hone-vs-home):
Q: My niece is always misusing the word “hone” when she should be using “home.” I know the difference, but have a tough time explaining it to her. Can you explain this rule for us? —Carol M.

No problem at all, Carol. This is a mistake people make all the time. Often people misuse the word “hone” by placing it in sentences where it doesn’t belong, but it’s a simple confusion that can be cleared up by understanding its definition.

The verb “hone” means “to sharpen or make more acute,” as in honing a talent. Alfred honed his negotiation skills to buy a new car at a very reasonable price. I hone my abs by doing 100 sit-ups a day.Generally, people drop it into sentences where they should use “home.”

In verb form, “home” (as in “to home in on”) means “to move or be aimed toward a destination or target with great accuracy.” Missiles home in on targets. The leftfielder homed in on the fly ball. “Forget about the abs!” I said as I homed in on a mouth-watering candy bar.

As a simple rule of thumb, if you write the sentence and need the phrase “in on” after the verb, it’s most likely “home.” If not, you probably need to use “hone.”
The use of "home" in this manner is long-standing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/home?s=t):
The verb meaning "to be guided to a destination by radio signals, etc. (of missiles, aircraft, etc.) is from 1920; it had been used earlier in ref. to homing pigeons (1875). In contrast, hone (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hone?s=t) has this Usage Note:

Hone is sometimes wrongly used where home is meant: this device makes it easier to home in on (not hone in on) the target

[Vaz]

Did Curmudgeon just RAW a joke?

[Nettlekid]

Did Curmudgeon just RAW a joke?

No, he didn't.

[jedipotter]

Random Just made up Jedipotter House Rules:

Divinations are fooled by disguises. Divination's work best only if you know the real name, apparence and details about a target. Anything less then that, and your divination will be fuzz at best, and fail at worst.

A cloak, mask or other such thing hides a target from seeking divinations. You can not meet a masked man at 9 PM on Monday, and then cast scry and see Rondot the alchemist at work on Friday...when you had no idea the masked man you met was Rondot.

Hiding prevents a ''connection'' from being made.

Polymorph and other changed shapes only allow you to make a ''connection'' to the shape you meet. If you meet Gorndar the wizard plolymorphed into Prince Humperdink, then you now have a ''second hand'' information...of the real Prince Humperdink.

Disguises, illusions and so forth have a 50/50 chance of finding the ''real'' one or the ''fake'' one. A form or idenity not in use just gives a 'blank'.

[Vaz]

No, he didn't.

I bet you're fun at parties. :smallyuk:

[Hazrond]

-snip-

You know jedi, i actually really do like this one :smallbiggrin:

[torrasque666]

Random Just made up Jedipotter House Rules:

Divinations are fooled by disguises. Divination's work best only if you know the real name, apparence and details about a target. Anything less then that, and your divination will be fuzz at best, and fail at worst.

A cloak, mask or other such thing hides a target from seeking divinations. You can not meet a masked man at 9 PM on Monday, and then cast scry and see Rondot the alchemist at work on Friday...when you had no idea the masked man you met was Rondot.

Hiding prevents a ''connection'' from being made.

Polymorph and other changed shapes only allow you to make a ''connection'' to the shape you meet. If you meet Gorndar the wizard plolymorphed into Prince Humperdink, then you now have a ''second hand'' information...of the real Prince Humperdink.

Disguises, illusions and so forth have a 50/50 chance of finding the ''real'' one or the ''fake'' one. A form or idenity not in use just gives a 'blank'.

For once, one that seems to make sense.

[(Un)Inspired]

The real problem here is that it's not really possible to meet or know anyone.

What does it mean to meet someone? To greet them? To see their face? To make small talk with them about their family or friends? In none of these ways are you meeting the person. You only have met the face they present to the world.

Who is a person? What is a person? Surely their appearance isn't who someone is. Appearances charge all the time purposefully or through accident or incident. A man might have long and tangled hair one day while the next he has clipped and combed it. Even extremities can be lost to disease or damage. This doesn't even approach the issue that the face we perceive in the mirror isn't the same as the face people perceive when they look at us. Truly looking upon a person's visage cannot be counted as meeting them for all that you have met is a fleeting image. A physical shroud that perhaps hides a person beneath it's surface.

What about speaking to a person? Can anyone claim that they can know a person simply by speaking to them? What man is the same person when he speaks to his friends as he is when he speaks to a stranger? Diction and attitude are expressions we project into the world. One day a person is angry, another he is elated. His opinions, passions, and manners fluctuate with his mood. Which of these is the real person? Are they all the real person? If they are then how can you possibly meet that person? They are not the same to you as they are to your neighbor. At best you speak to a part of a person. A side of a person that only exists as they talk exclusively to you in exactly which mental states they are currently in.

I don't think we can ever really scry on anyone.

[iTreeby]

sooo truenamer is broken eh?

[(Un)Inspired]

sooo truenamer is broken eh?

Yeah. Mechanics aside, the idea of a Truename seems... wrong. To say that the universe works on a set of words seems hopelessly anthropocentric but i guess that's already true of a world where magic spells exist based on words and hand motions.

Then of course they're the concern with what the word "true" means. How can something be true in a universal sense if truth is subjective? This seems doubly true with the idea of a name. What someone "should" be called? What something is "meant" to be called? How can such statements have any meaning? What are th ecriteria for somehtign being true?

[georgie_leech]

Yeah. Mechanics aside, the idea of a Truename seems... wrong. To say that the universe works on a set of words seems hopelessly anthropocentric but i guess that's already true of a world where magic spells exist based on words and hand motions.

Then of course they're the concern with what the word "true" means. How can something be true in a universal sense if truth is subjective? This seems doubly true with the idea of a name. What someone "should" be called? What something is "meant" to be called? How can such statements have any meaning? What are th ecriteria for somehtign being true?

Think of it less as language and more as understanding unambiguously how the Universe would refer to a given [insert Noun here].