Talent/Spell of the Week: Pathfinder

[Shostak]

[EDIT: Dear me! In a fit of Prootishness, I neglected to consult my spreadsheet which would have told me that we've already had Spellsniffer as a topic. I hope for a spirited discussion, regardless.]

[This series is becoming more like "Talent/Spell of the Fortnight" or even "...When I Get Around to It", but neither of those has quite the right ring, so we'll stick with the inaccurate title.]

Spellsniffer
This IQ 17 Thrown spell is exceptionally efficient at quickly detecting, revealing, and analyzing spells and magic items. Spellsniffer's version of Reveal Magic is nerfed from the basic spell, since it covers a much smaller area. However, its Detect and Analyze Magic aspects are, for the most part, greatly enhanced, applying to every spell and magic item within an area of effect some 44 feet in diameter. And it does this for a casting cost of half of that of Analyze Magic, which only works on a single target spell/enchantment! The ability to apply to all spells within the area of effect comes at a price: Spellsniffer analyzes magic with a greater chance of failure than Analyze Magic, since it requires 4d/IQ instead of 3d. But for someone with the IQ requisite for the spell, this still means succeeding about 85% of the time--that's roughly 5 times out of 6.

Among the character types for whom Spellsniffer is ideal are thieves or spies looking for valuable items and arcane hazards, and merchants who think they are likely to deal in paranormal paraphernalia.

To my reading, Spellsniffer's description implies that the spell is always successfully cast, but it's results are subject to failure. Maybe this is just too small potatoes to bother with, but shouldn't the spell be subject to a normal casting roll? This would allow for critical successes as well as critical failures, which could make all of the results of a given casting either more reliable or completely misleading. I can imagine having a critical success on the casting roll allow you to use the best of two or three Detect/Analyze rolls per spell/item. On a critical failure, the GM could leap into providing devious misinformation without any additional rolls. But, even if you don't require a casting roll, what does a critical success on the Detect Magic component of Spellsniffer do for understanding a given spell? Does it give a bonus to the Analyze roll?

Spellsniffer is, in my opinion, vastly overpowered, even at IQ 17 (Or not! See two paragraphs below!). At such a modest casting cost, a wizard can nonchalantly cast the spell several times over a pile of loot or in a reasonably large room (a sorcerer's workshop, a palace official's office or apartments, a prison, a bank, a caravanserai, a bazaar stall, an inn's dining room, etc.) and gain a wealth of information about whatever magic is present in it. Even if magic items have a couple of Conceal spells on them, a wizard with IQ17 will have a 50% chance of detecting them and a 20% chance of successfully analyzing them. By maintaining Spellsniffer for a mere 1 ST, a wizard could run 10 hexes and scan another area without any overlap with the previous area of effect. A wizard partnering with a pickpocket could identify every mark in a room with relative ease.

Several approaches to putting reasonable limits on Spellsniffer suggest themselves. One could have it work through spells starting at the top of the spell list (as per Analyze Magic) and stop working on its first failed roll. Another idea is to increase the casting cost to at least 5. The maintenance cost could also be increased, or perhaps the spell could require recasting for continued effect. Yet another possibility is to reduce the area of effect to a mere megahex or mega-megahex. I like the idea of having Spellsniffer failures place a false aura on an item/target spell that muddies all subsequent uses of Spellsniffer on it. Or, one could have failures make Spellsniffer always produce the same result for that caster. This undermines the usefulness of using Spellsniffer multiple times over the same suspected magic items, looking for repeated results. Having had Spellsniffer used frequently by characters in games I GM, I'd prefer to just disallow the spell altogether--I don't think that it adds to the fun.

But, maybe I'm giving the spell too much power. It is entirely possible that I misunderstand the intended resolution of the information that Spellsniffer (and Reveal Magic, for that matter) offers. Does it only tell the caster that spells/enchantments are somewhere within the area of effect? Or does it locate them within that area (e.g. "in this hex", or "on that person", or or even "on this item"? (I know Reveal Magic doesn't say what item is enchanted, but perhaps the Detect Magic aspect of Spellsniffer does?) I've always interpreted it as having the latter specificity, but perhaps I'm wrong. If so, Spellsniffer is still remarkably effective, but not nearly as overpowered as I've allowed it to be.

Conversation starters:

• What's your opinion about the resolution of the information Spellsniffer provides?
• How do you treat critical successes?
• With what other spells or talents does Spellsniffer work particularly well?
• Other than Conceal spells, what are countermeasures to Spellsniffer?
• Do you even allow Spellsniffer in your games?
• What house rules have you applied to it?
• Do you have a spectacular Spellsniffer success or failure from your games that you can share?

[hcobb]

My resolution of Spellsniffer is that the caster makes their DX roll then the GM rolls vs IQ for everything that starts or the first time it comes within range for Detect/Reveal, if the wizard chooses to maintain the spell then each turn after the first they can choose one item for Analyze. (Which is also rolled by the GM.)

As for Pathfinder and kin I add a die to each seeker spell which has succeeded on the same target in the past 24 hours. (By any caster.) Hence the first thing each wizard casts on himself each morning is Pathfinder to determine what to have for breakfast.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Shostak

...
To my reading, Spellsniffer's description implies that the spell is always successfully cast, but it's results are subject to failure. Maybe this is just too small potatoes to bother with, but shouldn't the spell be subject to a normal casting roll? . . .

Yes, it should, and does, no? Where are you getting that it's always successfully cast?

The spell description reads:

Originally Posted by ITL p. 32

When this spell is successfully cast . . .

.

And I would NOT do it like Henry wrote, but like other information spells, the GM would roll for casting, too, and on a failure, they'd not know whether they failed their casting, or succeeded but didn't detect anything, especially because the GM could/should roll the casting, and then even on a failure, roll several more times, making "hmm" sounds, so the players don't get meta-clues.

[Skarg]

I agree that Spellsniffer seems overpowered, but I think that's intentional. A GM may or may not want that level of overpoweredness for Spellsniffer in their campaign.

Its power has at least a few effects that some GMs may like, such as:

* It simplifies the otherwise more complex process of searching for and analyzing magic items. Some GMs may want magic items to be found and identified, or for it to be possible for such wizards, and trying to do it without this spell would be more complex to play out.

* It provides a counter-balance to many strategies and antics that could otherwise be perpetrated against the Wizard's Guild or other great wizards, using magic items or spells that might more easily go undetected.

* Some GMs may just like the idea that a powerful enough wizard can use Spellsniffer to quickly probably find out most of what's going on around them in terms of magic items and spells. That can eliminate a lot of second-guessing and so forth, and makes them more formidable.

But if the GM wants there to be more hidden spells and enchantments that are harder to figure out etc, they may not want the ease that Spellsniffer brings, especially if their other assumptions imply that almost any decent Wizard's Guild chapter would have at least one wizard able and willing to use this spell on an adventuring party's wagon full of loot and junk dragged back from their latest adventures.

One counter to *that*, of course, is to consider having guilds and wizards have policies about what they're allowed to do if they discover a magic item a client didn't know about, and/or if they're dishonest and may lie, and/or tell others who may then try to get these items from the players one way or another, etc.

And of course, there may be some items with a bunch of Conceal spells on them, or even Immunity to Detect Magic.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes, it should, and does, no? Where are you getting that it's always successfully cast?

The spell description reads: .

And I would NOT do it like Henry wrote, but like other information spells, the GM would roll for casting, too, and on a failure, they'd not know whether they failed their casting, or succeeded but didn't detect anything, especially because the GM could/should roll the casting, and then even on a failure, roll several more times, making "hmm" sounds, so the players don't get meta-clues.

If the spell fails, it only costs 1 ST, so the player would know that it fails and if it critically fails, they'd know that all of the information given would be false. So, while the description does say "When this spell is cast successfully," one needs to have it be successful if they want to fool the player w/a critical failure.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Shostak

If the spell fails, it only costs 1 ST, so the player would know that it fails and if it critically fails, they'd know that all of the information given would be false. So, while the description does say "When this spell is cast successfully," one needs to have it be successful if they want to fool the player w/a critical failure.

I play pretty much all information spells like Analyze Magic - if you fail, the GM lies, and part of lying, is the GM making all the success rolls, and having the spell cost the full amount on a failure.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I play pretty much all information spells like Analyze Magic - if you fail, the GM lies, and part of lying, is the GM making all the success rolls, and having the spell cost the full amount on a failure.

This is essentially the same thing as having the casting always work, but the interpretation of its results subject to failure.

[hcobb]

Due to the quantum physics involved, once a wizard is informed that the cat is alive or undead, er once the wizard is informed of what the expected result of the divination is then all of his castings will either fail or return that result. Only on a critical success can he escape his previous assumptions. Hence the insistence on starting fresh on each subject with no hints.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Shostak

This is essentially the same thing as having the casting always work, but the interpretation of its results subject to failure.

Well, except for the higher overall chance of failure, and the increased cost.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Due to the quantum physics involved, once a wizard is informed that the cat is alive or undead, er once the wizard is informed of what the expected result of the divination is then all of his castings will either fail or return that result. Only on a critical success can he escape his previous assumptions. Hence the insistence on starting fresh on each subject with no hints.

Well this sort of idea is one of the main ways to achieve actual difficulty and uncertainty, even in the face of determined people with an abundance of time and fatigue on their hands.

For a GM who doesn't want all their game's secrets or enchantments to be pretty trivially discoverable with that kind of effort, this can be a solid way to do it. i.e. Casting an information spell locks the available information, at least up to some limit in terms of time or casters/subjects.