Teleport while Scrying: No Mishap?

[Nagog]

Question about the Teleport Spell: If I teleport to a location I'm currently Scrying on (Scrying on a creature at that location), is it considered "Very Familiar"? The description for very familiar says

“Very familiar” is a place you have been very often, a place you have carefully studied, or a place you can see when you cast the spell.

However, "Viewed once" (that has a 50% higher chance of encountering problems) is described as


“Viewed once” is a place you have seen once, possibly using magic.

So, while I am viewing it with magic, it is a place I can see when I cast the spell. I'm mostly asking because I'd like an explanation for how a high level NPC gets the jump on an adventuring party when they're in the middle of nowhere.

[MaxWilson]

Question about the Teleport Spell: If I teleport to a location I'm currently Scrying on (Scrying on a creature at that location), is it considered "Very Familiar"? The description for very familiar says


However, "Viewed once" (that has a 50% higher chance of encountering problems) is described as



So, while I am viewing it with magic, it is a place I can see when I cast the spell. I'm mostly asking because I'd like an explanation for how a high level NPC gets the jump on an adventuring party when they're in the middle of nowhere.

I would say that it's a place you can see while you are scrying, and after your scrying spell ends it downgrades to "viewed once."

[Valmark]

I would say that it's a place you can see while you are scrying, and after your scrying spell ends it downgrades to "viewed once."

This.

Though keep in mind that you still have a chance of mishap, although low.

[solidork]

My DM ruled that it worked like teleporting to a place that you can currently see as long as you teleport during Scrying, so no chance of error.

[Tanarii]

Teleporting to a place you've scryed will be viewed once, unless you've done it a whole bunch of times. That's made even more clear due to the comment on Magic explicitly included.

Guarantee the Devs were aware of the phrase "scry and fry". The including of "possibly including Magic" in the viewed once category wouldn't have been a mistake.

[solidork]

Teleporting to a place you've scryed will be viewed once, unless you've done it a whole bunch of times. That's made even more clear due to the comment on Magic explicitly included.

Guarantee the Devs were aware of the phrase "scry and fry". The including of "possibly including Magic" in the viewed once category wouldn't have been a mistake.

Yeah, but the question is about a place you are CURRENTLY Scrying on - casting Teleport during the duration of the Scrying spell.

You can see the location, so it's "Very Familiar".

[Valmark]

My DM ruled that it worked like teleporting to a place that you can currently see as long as you teleport during Scrying, so no chance of error.

A place you are seeing is a 25% of error still. To have no chance you'd need an item or a Teleportation Circle sequence.

[solidork]

A place you are seeing is a 25% of error still. To have no chance you'd need an item or a Teleportation Circle sequence.

You're right! Still, it is a pretty good chance.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, but the question is about a place you are CURRENTLY Scrying on - casting Teleport during the duration of the Scrying spell.

You can see the location, so it's "Very Familiar".
That can work if you're going by yourself. But if you want to take a target creature or object, you're going to have to stop looking through the Scrying invisible sensor first before you cast Teleport.

[Valmark]

That can work if you're going by yourself. But if you want to take a target creature or object, you're going to have to stop looking through the Scrying invisible sensor first before you cast Teleport.

That's a ruling on your part- and possibly an house rule, since it's neither something indicated by the text nor something implied, given that 'creatures you can see' can target creatures that don't fit in the same field of view and that if you were blind to your surroundings it'd probably say so.

If anything, the opposite is implied.

And the fact that normally people stare at multiple things simultaneously all the time.

[Tanarii]

That's a ruling on your part- and possibly an house rule, since it's neither something indicated by the text nor something implied, given that 'creatures you can see' can target creatures that don't fit in the same field of view and that if you were blind to your surroundings it'd probably say so.Anyone ruling that you can see two totally different things at once, what your eyes see and what the sensor sees, would be a mighty generous DM. Nothing implies it works like a faint overlay of what you're actually seeing (or vice versa).

[Valmark]

Anyone ruling that you can see two totally different things at once, what your eyes see and what the sensor sees, would be a mighty generous DM. Nothing implies it works like a faint overlay of what you're actually seeing (or vice versa).

Nor does it imply that you see only that, since it doesn't blind you unlike... Well, anything else that blinds you while using it.

Besides, the material component needs to be a reflective surface- it seems to be heavily implied that you look into said surface.

Also it's not actually generous- most people do it every time they watch their phones while walking or something like that.

[Dark.Revenant]

Anyone ruling that you can see two totally different things at once, what your eyes see and what the sensor sees, would be a mighty generous DM. Nothing implies it works like a faint overlay of what you're actually seeing (or vice versa).

The lore behind Scrying is that the image appears to you in the mirror / crystal ball, which means you can see other things around you. If the sensor hijacked your senses, the spell would specify that you're blind/deaf until you choose to go back to your real senses, like it does for most other effects like this.

[Tanarii]

Nor does it imply that you see only that, since it doesn't blind you unlike... Well, anything else that blinds you while using it.

Besides, the material component needs to be a reflective surface- it seems to be heavily implied that you look into said surface.

Also it's not actually generous- most people do it every time they watch their phones while walking or something like that.
It's very generous. People don't look at two things at once. They context switch.

[Valmark]

It's very generous. People don't look at two things at once. They context switch.

Except that nobody mentioned looking, not even the text. And people are definitely seeing multiple things at once all the time.

Note: I assume you define 'looking' as focusing on something, rather then it simply being in your field of view.

Regardless, to not risk derailing the thread, just keep in mind that your ruling has no actual support in the text- it's no more 'correct' then the other (I'd say it's actively wrong but it might very well be just my opinion).

[Lunali]

It's very generous. People don't look at two things at once. They context switch.

Which means that while the teleport spell explicitly tells you you can take up to 8 creatures with you, you can only see one at a time so you can only take one?

[Tanarii]

The lore behind Scrying is that the image appears to you in the mirror / crystal ball, which means you can see other things around you. If the sensor hijacked your senses, the spell would specify that you're blind/deaf until you choose to go back to your real senses, like it does for most other effects like this.
Thats not a bad interpretation, given the costly material component. Certainly beats other folks suggestion that you can see & hear two things at once with one set of senses.

[MaxWilson]

Thats not a bad interpretation, given the costly material component. Certainly beats other folks suggestion that you can see & hear two things at once with one set of senses.

You've never experimented with pointing your eyes in two different directions (e.g. crossing your eyes)?

[Tanarii]

You've never experimented with pointing your eyes in two different directions (e.g. crossing your eyes)?
Only that thing where you take two pictures some distance apart, flip them, then cross your eyes to get a 3D view.

Also, your comment may or may not have resulted in some eye strain

[MaxWilson]

Only that thing where you take two pictures some distance apart, flip them, then cross your eyes to get a 3D view.

Also, your comment may or may not have resulted in some eye strain

To me the most interesting thing is that when your field of view expands (from crossing your eyes), your brain compensates by making everything look smaller. This indicates that something in your brain is measuring object size not based on how much of a given eyeball's field of view it occupies, but apparently based on the fraction of all visual inputs.

Anyway, I see nothing outlandish about seeing multiple things at once.

[Tanarii]

Anyway, I see nothing outlandish about seeing multiple things at once.
There's a big difference from seeing multiple things in your field of view, and seeing two different field of views simultaneously. Dark.Revenant's suggestion turns it into the first of those, as opposed to the latter.

Crossing eyes demonstrates pretty effectively that even attempting to simulate the latter doesn't work very well. Let alone actually having it happen.

[MaxWilson]

There's a big difference from seeing multiple things in your field of view, and seeing two different field of views simultaneously.

Yes, and crossing your eyes or holding a mobile phone up to one eye is the latter: seeing two different fields of view simultaneously, which your brain splices together anyway. Adding a third source (magic plugged directly into your brain) doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Here's a test: if you close one eye while your eyes are looking at different things, does it look different than when both eyes are open? If it does, then you were looking at both fields of vision simultaneously.


Crossing eyes demonstrates pretty effectively that even attempting to simulate the latter doesn't work very well. Let alone actually having it happen.

I think it demonstrates the opposite, but maybe our brains just process visual inputs differently than each other.

[Lunali]

There's a big difference from seeing multiple things in your field of view, and seeing two different field of views simultaneously. Dark.Revenant's suggestion turns it into the first of those, as opposed to the latter.

Crossing eyes demonstrates pretty effectively that even attempting to simulate the latter doesn't work very well. Let alone actually having it happen.

Alternative question. How do you see the provision on being able to teleport 8 people that you can see to a location that you can see working in other cases?

I would see it as having all 8 people be visible from your location and having the target visible from your location. This could mean having them all in a circle holding hands in front of you in between you in the target, but it could also mean having them scattered in your vicinity. An example would be having the party scattered on the deck of a ship as you stand on the aftcastle and teleport to another ship. I would even typically allow someone to use a spyglass in such a situation, though I would find it reasonable if a DM ruled otherwise as unlike the scrying spell it would disrupt your vision.

[Chronic]

Also, an action is 6 second, you can move your head during that time, and the game doesn't take facing into account. That's why characters have a 360° field of view. Honestly don't try to find physiological answer to problems that emanates from game design, otherwise you are in for quite the headache.

[Arkhios]

While Scrying requires Concentration, Teleport doesn't. Rules As Written, you lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration.

So, because casting Teleport doesn't end your Scrying, the location is very familiar to you by RAW:


"Very familiar" is a place you have been very often, a place you have carefully studied, or a place you can see when you cast the spell.

Mishap is still a possibility, but it's very low (01-05% chance).

Whatever else a DM decides as "required" that doesn't follow Rules As Written, is a house-rule. Whether you choose to teleport by yourself or with your group, is irrelevant to how Teleport works. You don't need to avert your Scrying to "choose" who to take with you.

[Tanarii]

Here's a test: if you close one eye while your eyes are looking at different things, does it look different than when both eyes are open? If it does, then you were looking at both fields of vision simultaneously.
I think putting two different views in front of each eye conclusively demonstrates that the human brain can't handle it properly, and that's with only half a view in front of each eye. It doesn't reconcile crossed eyes properly, and it can't reconcile two different views at all. Adding a third and fourth one feeding into brain as coming from both eyes simultaneously with each of the first two would probably result in brainsplosion.

The only way to reconcile the spell not explicitly stating it makes the character unable to see their surrounding meaning that they can, is to assume they're using the costly focus to see through the invisible sensor. Despite that also not being explicit.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Teleport doesn't require you to stare at companions to teleport them. The phrase "8 creature you can see" being interpreted as "stare at 8 creatures" would be inconsistent with other uses [like for paladins]. It just means you need unobstructed LoS to them.

So the only question would be if scrying blocks your other senses, which IMO it would say explicitly if it does.

[Darth Credence]

I'm on the side that it would fall under a place you can see, although I would have a few caveats. Mostly involving whether or not there is actually enough information to narrow it down to a unique place. If you are scrying on a place, you would have had to already have seen that place, and so I definitely side with it counting as very familiar for these purposes. But if you are scrying on a person, and you are watching them sleep in their giant canopy bed so all you can see are the bed covers and curtains, then I might be tempted to call it viewed once, or even call it a false destination. I'm not sure where I would end up drawing the line - how unique is a dirty cell in a dungeon, or a bedroom at an inn?

[Nagog]

I think putting two different views in front of each eye conclusively demonstrates that the human brain can't handle it properly,

Ah, there's the disconnect. You're assuming the character in question is human! For the sake of conversation, let's assume this mage is not a human.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, there's the disconnect. You're assuming the character in question is human! For the sake of conversation, let's assume this mage is not a human.

To summarize:

You could see more than one thing because you're not human.

You could see more than one thing because magic adds an additional visual input.

You could see more than one thing because even some (all?) humans are perfectly capable of doing so.

In all three cases, you can see both the destination and your companions at the same time, so it's reasonable to say that Teleport works as expected.

[Mastikator]

Teleport doesn't require you to stare at companions to teleport them. The phrase "8 creature you can see" being interpreted as "stare at 8 creatures" would be inconsistent with other uses [like for paladins]. It just means you need unobstructed LoS to them.

So the only question would be if scrying blocks your other senses, which IMO it would say explicitly if it does.

This seems to be pretty much case closed then?

To teleport with 8 other people you need to "can see" them. To teleport with "very familiar" you need to "actively look at" which scying allows because it gives you the option of "can see". Nothing in the teleport spell requires you to look away from the scrying, it's even possible for the 8 other people to be within your field of view.

The teleport spell by RAW suggest that actively looking is not required since you can't actively look at 8 people with only 2 eyes, but rather it's enough if they're within field of view.