Foresight: Sell Me On This

[Fax Celestis]

Why is foresight worth a 9th level slot? Immunity to flat-footing and surprise, +2 insight to AC and Reflex saves? Seems a tad mediocre, especially in comparison to things like moment of prescience,

[Rubik]

Why is foresight worth a 9th level slot? Immunity to flat-footing and surprise, +2 insight to AC and Reflex saves? Seems a tad mediocre, especially in comparison to things like moment of prescience,Well, you can't take immediate actions when you're flat-footed, so anything that requires immediate actions to prevent you from dying before you can act (such as Celerity) just about requires it.

[tyckspoon]

Why is foresight worth a 9th level slot? Immunity to flat-footing and surprise, +2 insight to AC and Reflex saves? Seems a tad mediocre, especially in comparison to things like moment of prescience,

In Core, it depends on how your DM interprets the bit about receiving flashes of insight about danger. If he gives you information about things, you have precognition and it's potentially very powerful. If you only get the exact bonuses outlined in the spell, it's still useful but you'd be better off with other spells.

Outside of Core, never being Flatfooted with a decent duration is itself almost worthy of a 9th level, because out of Core brings us Immediate Actions. Things like Abrupt Jaunt, an Initiate's wardings, and the grand dog of Immediate Screw You, Celerity. The only way to reliably threaten a caster with defensive tools like that is to ambush and kill him before they can be used, and Foresight makes that impossible.

[Piggy Knowles]

Never being flat-footed or surprised is a pretty big deal, since either condition essentially means that you lose when it comes to the rocket tag of high-level play. Of course, there are other ways to get it (my favorite is Heir of Siberys for mind blank as an SLA + Mark of Stars feat... a nice little addition for a non-full caster).

[Phelix-Mu]

Why is foresight worth a 9th level slot? Immunity to flat-footing and surprise, +2 insight to AC and Reflex saves? Seems a tad mediocre, especially in comparison to things like moment of prescience,


I think part of the issue is that the typical optimization discussion often takes a "solo caster v [every possibility]." That casters can even be theoretically prepared for every outcome speaks to their op-ceiling, but I think it does a bit of a disservice to the average caster-in-play. Yes, being prepared is important. No, you don't need a spell for everything (other items work too), and then you probably have friends or other resources that are hard to quantify from an op-based perspective.

In short, rocket tag pretty much makes foresight really good. But, to be 100% truthful, the best way to win at 20th-level rocket tag is to bring a group of competent 20th-level characters with you when you go. Doing so will be much better than foresight, and maybe even save you needing to kit yourself against every possible threat.

Now, a good caster will prepare against contingencies as well, and being caught alone is always possible. But I don't think this is necessarily a huge concern for resources, because, at least from a metagame perspective, the caster isn't the only pc in the game; by cooperating with friends and devoting group resources to threat-mitigation, I think many other solutions can more or less cover the same role that foresight fills.

That said, if you are sweating it, you can probably cover it with multiple, lower-impact resources. Scrolls of foresight for when it is irreplaceable. Contingencies/Elminster's evasion for when that high-level Tier 1 catches you off-guard (a good choice is usually to run when this happens, return later to fight on even ground). Guardians that can't be surprised or flat-footed. All of that is pretty much manageable with WBL in high-op (long live Craft Contingent Spell, lol). This calculus must be weighed against whatever other 9th-level spell you are considering, and your character's specific casting mechanic. Sorcerers want for spells that can always be useful, and, as often as possible, spammed to good effect (stuff usable more than 1/day, for instance), but other classes have other considerations.

Needless to say, 9ths are a very precious (if perhaps not irreplaceable) resource, so due thought is called for (and the Playground is here to help!).

[HunterOfJello]

Situation 1:
You accidentally walk into the demon ambush! You are flat-footed. They get a surprise round. Arrows and spell-like abilities rain down on you!

Situation 2:
You accidentally walk into the demon ambush! You have Foresight so you aren't flat-footed. They get a surprise round. Arrows and spell-like abilities rain down on you... "CELERITY! I cast Ottiluke's Resilient Sphere and chill out." ...and they all bounce off harmlessly.


Even at level 20 a wizard could potentially be taken out by several beefy melee or ranged characters doing enough damage. A wizard is by far the most vulnerable when flat-footed. That's why boosting initiative and casting Foresight are very powerful protections.

[Phelix-Mu]

Situation 1:
You accidentally walk into the demon ambush! You are flat-footed. They get a surprise round. Arrows and spell-like abilities rain down on you!

Situation 2:
You accidentally walk into the demon ambush! You have Foresight so you aren't flat-footed. They get a surprise round. Arrows and spell-like abilities rain down on you... "CELERITY! I cast Ottiluke's Resilient Sphere and chill out." ...and they all bounce off harmlessly.

This premise is, of course, perfectly valid, but I'm not sure it presents the most optimal use of resources. There are multiple ways for a full-caster to prevent Situation 1 from occurring, many of which are less precious than a 9th-level spell slot/spell known.

But the real question is, considering the set of all situations, including the above, in which foresight solves the problem, is said set big enough to edge out other competition for that 9th level slot. Simplistic Illustration: To memorize/know either wish or foresight? One is good, the other is great (if expensive).

Also, it occurred to me that Fax may not have meant this in terms of a specific character's optimization, but more in a design context. That of "isn't foresight less powerful than other 9th-level spells" or similar concept. Some clarification, Fax?

(and apologies if "Fax" is too familiar)

[Optimator]

My DM gives verbal warnings about imminent danger, so it's pretty damn handy.

[Crimson Wolf]

Yeah no flat foot so you can cast instant spells seems rather awesome. Let's say you have a surprise round, for that surprise round you are pretty much dead meet depending on how sadistic the DM is. As for the AC and Reflex, having higher reflex and ac can SAVE YOUR BUTT, especially when you cant wear armor as a caster. That plus AC might be the two points you need to save from a rather devastating attack, or that reflex might be what you needed to avoid that dangerous trap you just accidentally set off!

[Fax Celestis]

This premise is, of course, perfectly valid, but I'm not sure it presents the most optimal use of resources. There are multiple ways for a full-caster to prevent Situation 1 from occurring, many of which are less precious than a 9th-level spell slot/spell known.

But the real question is, considering the set of all situations, including the above, in which foresight solves the problem, is said set big enough to edge out other competition.

Also, it occurred to me that Fax may not have meant this in terms of a specific character's optimization, but more in a design context. That of "isn't foresight less powerful than other 9th-level spells" or similar concept. Some clarification, Fax?

(and apologies if "Fax" is too familiar)

Fax is fine.

And yeah, the basic question isn't so much "how do I use this?", but more "why would I use this instead of another 9th level spell?"

I am considering changing the text to this:


This spell grants the target a powerful sixth sense. Once foresight is cast, the target receives instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to themselves. They are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives them a general idea of what action they might take to best protect themselves and gives them a +4 insight bonus to Initiative checks, Armor Class, and Reflex saves, as well as the evasion ability. These bonuses are lost whenever they would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC. In addition, you receive information about the subject of the spell as if by the status and spell scan spells.


...with the proviso that the spell's access would be extremely limited (ie: a 15th+ level wizard with the Astrology school (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?309205-d20r-Class-The-Wizard) or a 17th+ level cleric with the Knowledge domain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124934-d20r-Class-The-Cleric-(v1-1)) only), and noting that the spell's effects are conferred to whomever you touch, not having a mostly-useless fluffbuff if you touch someone else, and awesome benefits just for you (because You're A Wizard, And You're Worth It™ in 3.5).

[Phelix-Mu]

No immediate, novel abuse pops to mind, and it is probably not overpowered (considering the context-annihilating power of the most powerful 9ths).

Consider adding language to make it clear that the fluff clause in sentences two, three, and four are just that, and that the mechanical benefits are explicitly pointed out and the full extent of what the spell grants. This would remove the present issue about just how much the character is entitled to know based on the spell, which I'm not sure is clear with your rewrite.

[Fax Celestis]

This spell grants the target a powerful sixth sense. Once foresight is cast, the target receives instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to themselves, as detailed here:

They are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives them a general idea of what action they might take to best protect themselves and gives them a +4 insight bonus to Initiative checks, Armor Class, and Reflex saves, as well as the evasion ability. These bonuses are lost whenever they would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.

In addition, you receive information about the subject of the spell as if by the status and spell scan spells.

Probably better.

[eggynack]

Even all of the shapechange in the world isn't enough to save you if your opponent gets to use all of their shapechange first. Not being flat-footed, and presumably skipping surprise rounds, means that you get more actions, and more actions is frigging everything. You don't use foresight instead of other 9th's, because other 9th's are ridiculous. You use foresight on top of other 9th's, in order to get those other 9th's to work in the first place. It's the same reason why dire tortoise form is so ridiculous, and combining the two abilities is pretty sweet.

The only think that I think might make the spell not worth casting is the duration, but it's not the biggest issue in the universe, especially at that level (where 10 minutes/level goes a lot further). In any case, I don't see any reason for a buff. Foresight is worth casting, if not the most worth casting, and that's far more than I can say for some 9th's (Greater whirlwind, I'm looking at you).

[Phelix-Mu]

This spell grants the target a powerful sixth sense. Once foresight is cast, the target receives instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to themselves, as detailed here:

They are never surprised or flat-footed. In addition, the spell gives them a general idea of what action they might take to best protect themselves and gives by giving them a +4 insight bonus to Initiative checks, Armor Class, and Reflex saves, as well as the evasion ability. These bonuses are lost whenever they would lose a Dexterity bonus to AC.

In addition, you receive information about the subject of the spell as if by the status and spell scan spells.

Emphasis and alteration to illustrate my primary concern on the point of ambiguity. This is arguably splitting hairs, but much RAW debate has revolved around substantially less.

[Fax Celestis]

Emphasis and alteration to illustrate my primary concern on the point of ambiguity. This is arguably splitting hairs, but much RAW debate has revolved around substantially less.

Agreed. I'll fix that. Thanks.

[Phelix-Mu]

Even all of the shapechange in the world isn't enough to save you if your opponent gets to use all of their shapechange first. Not being flat-footed, and presumably skipping surprise rounds, means that you get more actions, and more actions is frigging everything. You don't use foresight instead of other 9th's, because other 9th's are ridiculous. You use foresight on top of other 9th's, in order to get those other 9th's to work in the first place. It's the same reason why dire tortoise form is so ridiculous, and combining the two abilities is pretty sweet.

The only think that I think might make the spell not worth casting is the duration, but it's not the biggest issue in the universe, especially at that level (where 10 minutes/level goes a lot further). In any case, I don't see any reason for a buff. Foresight is worth casting, if not the most worth casting, and that's far more than I can say for some 9th's (Greater whirlwind, I'm looking at you).

I think making the spell harder to get may justify making it a bit stronger.

As to the shapechange issue, careful application of other op can probably stop surprise from happening without using a 9th every day, leaving open a slot for more shapechange. More shapechange is probably going to solve more problems more often than threat-mitigation, even sensible threat-mitigation.

[eggynack]

I think making the spell harder to get may justify making it a bit stronger.
Plausible, though I think that's a different sort of issue, as at that point you're just creating a buff/nerf pair that leaves the spell at its old general power level.


As to the shapechange issue, careful application of other op can probably stop surprise from happening without using a 9th every day, leaving open a slot for more shapechange. More shapechange is probably going to solve more problems more often than threat-mitigation, even sensible threat-mitigation.

Well, maybe, but I don't think that's much of a reason to make foresight more powerful. It's a good spell, but it's not a strictly necessary spell (or you'd see a lot more 15th level wizards that are completely screwed), and it's not the best spell in the game. Foresight is actually a thing that I think is pretty special in a 9th, which is reasonably balanced. It's not completely overpowered, like shapechange or gate, and neither is it horribly underpowered, like so many horrible 9th's. It's the kinda 9th that I think the game needs more of.

[Zanos]

A group of bad people want to kill you. They use wish(thanks for the hilarious uses in my thread) to overcome your magical defenses and pop their entire skill squad right in next to you, and on their surprise round they...don't do anything, because you've already left.

Sounds like a good value to me, honestly.

Foresight->Celerity->Timestop is also hilarious.

[Phelix-Mu]

I guess I really don't have enough high-op gameplay experience: is it really impossible to contingency against someone getting a surprise round? Like, contingent teleport that triggers when you are surprised? That seems better value-for-money.

In short, for a 9th-level slot, I'd like something that does slightly more/something more versatile than just save my bacon in a "what if" scenario (especially since, as a full-caster, I probably can just engineer that scenario out of existence).

[Vogonjeltz]

No immediate, novel abuse pops to mind, and it is probably not overpowered (considering the context-annihilating power of the most powerful 9ths).

Consider adding language to make it clear that the fluff clause in sentences two, three, and four are just that, and that the mechanical benefits are explicitly pointed out and the full extent of what the spell grants. This would remove the present issue about just how much the character is entitled to know based on the spell, which I'm not sure is clear with your rewrite.

That isn't fluff, the srd20 has no flavor text, it's hard rules.

[Phelix-Mu]

That isn't fluff, the srd20 has no flavor text, it's hard rules.

We are (were) discussing Fax' own houseruled change to the spell and how to make it less ambiguous; all quotes mentioned are to Fax' proposed change, not to the srd version. Lines in spells that amount to "[DM adjudication required]" are most decidedly ambiguous.

[Rubik]

We are (were) discussing Fax' own houseruled change to the spell and how to make it less ambiguous; all quotes mentioned are to Fax' proposed change, not to the srd version. Lines in spells that amount to "[DM adjudication required]" are most decidedly ambiguous.I've been editing a story for the past hour, and I have to jump in here.

Fax' is not possessive. Any singular noun is turned into a possessive using 's, including those ending in X and S.

[Phelix-Mu]

I've been editing a story for the past hour, and I have to jump in here.

Fax' is not possessive. Any singular noun is turned into a possessive using 's, including those ending in X and S.

First, please source me on your basis for that claim. I was under the impression that this is one of those areas of contention.

As a normal stickler for English, I would agree with you (assuming you are right, and I just wanted to be sure about that) and beg pardon. I, however, believe that naming conventions and their derivations belong to those named, and thus I would defer to Fax. Personally, it always bothers me when good grammar overrules an entity's ability to determine how they are referred to in discourse; granted, the form of a possessive noun is an edge case, but I think the principle still applies.

[Rubik]

First, please source me on your basis for that claim. I was under the impression that this is one of those areas of contention.

As a normal stickler for English, I would agree with you (assuming you are right, and I just wanted to be sure about that) and beg pardon. I, however, believe that naming conventions and their derivations belong to those named, and thus I would defer to Fax. Personally, it always bothers me when good grammar overrules an entity's ability to determine how they are referred to in discourse; granted, the form of a possessive noun is an edge case, but I think the principle still applies.According to this source, (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm) only non-English words should end in x', and even then it looks clunky, and I find it severely annoying to try to read.

As for the s' for a singular word, that really ought to be avoided as well. It's really easy to get confused at times doing that, since both plural and singular words are spelled exactly the same, and the number can change the meaning of a passage significantly.

My rules of thumb are that all writing should remain consistent, and when two or more rules of grammar contradict each other and either can be used, always use the one that results in fewer incidents of confusion.

Thus, according to both consistency and clarity, always add an 's to a singular possessive noun. The only exceptions would be in cases where clarity is compromised, but I can't think of any time when that would be the case.

I don't want to go too far off-topic, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Fax Celestis]

Plausible, though I think that's a different sort of issue, as at that point you're just creating a buff/nerf pair that leaves the spell at its old general power level.


Well, maybe, but I don't think that's much of a reason to make foresight more powerful. It's a good spell, but it's not a strictly necessary spell (or you'd see a lot more 15th level wizards that are completely screwed), and it's not the best spell in the game. Foresight is actually a thing that I think is pretty special in a 9th, which is reasonably balanced. It's not completely overpowered, like shapechange or gate, and neither is it horribly underpowered, like so many horrible 9th's. It's the kinda 9th that I think the game needs more of.

I'm going to step in here and say use 's, if only so we can get back to the topic.

[Phelix-Mu]

According to this source, (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm) only non-English words should end in x', and even then it looks clunky, and I find it severely annoying to try to read.

As for the s' for a singular word, that really ought to be avoided as well. It's really easy to get confused at times doing that, since both plural and singular words are spelled exactly the same, and the number can change the meaning of a passage significantly.

My rules of thumb are that all writing should remain consistent, and when two or more rules of grammar contradict each other and either can be used, always use the one that results in fewer incidents of confusion.

Thus, according to both consistency and clarity, always add an 's to a singular possessive noun. The only exceptions would be in cases where clarity is compromised, but I can't think of any time when that would be the case.

Semi-counterpoint.
(http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/possesive1.php)
I agree that consistency is something to strive for. That is why you will see me consistently opt for the opposite ruling, but only with regards to proper names. I don't believe this is an area where enough vagueness is introduced by different rulings to make a hash of what the language is trying to communicate (much like the "x, y, and z" vs "x, y and z" debate).

My reasoning is pretty much that English should strive to be readable, and even to those not intimately familiar with the language. Since there is some discrepancy in how possessive forms are pronounced, I don't mind reflecting that in my writing. "Fax" to me fits in the same group as "Thomas" and "Jesus" and can be pronounced in the same way as the basic name (as it is in many places).

EDIT: But I will ofc default to the OP's wishes.

[Rubik]

Semi-counterpoint.
(http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/possesive1.php)
I agree that consistency is something to strive for. That is why you will see me consistently opt for the opposite ruling, but only with regards to proper names. I don't believe this is an area where enough vagueness is introduced by different rulings to make a hash of what the language is trying to communicate (much like the "x, y, and z" vs "x, y and z" debate).

My reasoning is pretty much that English should strive to be readable, and even to those not intimately familiar with the language. Since there is some discrepancy in how possessive forms are pronounced, I don't mind reflecting that in my writing. "Fax" to me fits in the same group as "Thomas" and "Jesus" and can be pronounced in the same way as the basic name (as it is in many places).

EDIT: But I will ofc default to the OP's wishes.Writing using several different rules for the same process kills consistency in your writing, which goes against being clear and concise.And now I'm out.

[Psyren]

*sidesteps GNs*

MoP is discharged, Foresight is not. That's a big deal right there, although Foresight's duration prior to that is significantly shorter and being 9th is hard to extend, but by the time you get it it's probably going to protect you for at least two battles.

Another big deal is that druids get Foresight. Okay yeah, in 3.5 they should probably be cramming all those slots with Shapechange, but since that lasts all day too you can probably spare one to never be caught with your robes around your ankles.

[HammeredWharf]

As to the shapechange issue, careful application of other op can probably stop surprise from happening without using a 9th every day

"Probably" is the key word here, especially in a high-op game where you often fight against other wizards and nonstandard monsters. They could be protected against divination, have extreme initiative and other nasty tricks. Foresight is a hard counter to being flat-footed, the other methods aren't. Even assuming you only have one 9:th level spell per day, would you rather have 8:th level spells or no actions at all?

The way I see it, an optimized high-level caster is safe from obvious harm. He's not going to die to a big guy who hits hard. He's only in danger when something catches him off guard and that's exactly when Foresight is helpful.

[Emperor Tippy]

First 9th level spell to keep up all day if you can: Shapechange.
Second 9th level spell to keep up all day if you can: Foresight.

Foresight is critical if you want to survive competent enemies at levels 17+. Well that or lots of money for Crafted Contingencies that you DM may or may not let be triggered against things that you don't know about.

Without Foresight you can't drop Celerity at any time and without being able to drop Celerity at any time you can't survive the alpha strikes that you enemies will drop on you at any time with no notice.

[Vogonjeltz]

We are (were) discussing Fax' own houseruled change to the spell and how to make it less ambiguous; all quotes mentioned are to Fax' proposed change, not to the srd version. Lines in spells that amount to "[DM adjudication required]" are most decidedly ambiguous.

The line is verbatim from the srd version. It would be counterintuitive to think that it's suddenly descriptive rather than mechanical.

To avoid unecessary confusion it would be prudent to avoid house rules that make non obvious changes, in the same way it's best to use the Oxford comma, to avoid pointless confusion.