Vatic Gaze (from PHB II)

[RangerWickett]

From that, I'd think they just mean the level of the spells, not the spells themselves. Finding out more seems to be more powerful than a feat should grant at 9th level.

 

[Corsair]

In case only the levels are disclosed, why doesn't the feat then say "you learn the levels of the highest-level spells the opponent is capable of casting"?

Because that would be redundant.

John can drive an unknown number of cars to work, painted in at most 10 different colors (assuming no epic custom paint jobs). By taking the feat "Hack into the MAACO database", "you learn the darkest-color cars john is capable of driving".

Does that sentence sound to you like you learn what color the cars might be, or that you would learn not only the color, but the make and model of every car of that color?

I suppose what makes this somewhat more confusing is that I don't think that sentence is technically grammatically correct. It has two nouns which could be the subject of the sentence (color and cars). One of those two nouns should be part of a prepositional phrase starting with the word "of". Either "the darkest-color of cars" or "cars of the darkest color". Given the phrasing used, I lean towards the former. I understand why the confusion existed in the first place though.

That being said, I can't think of a single spell, feat, effect, etc in the game which tells you what specific spells/powers a person has, while arcane sight already exists to tell you the levels. As such, I'd be inclined to say that alone lends support to Victim's reasoning.

 

[Nathan]

Because that would be redundant.

John can drive an unknown number of cars to work, painted in at most 10 different colors (assuming no epic custom paint jobs). By taking the feat "Hack into the MAACO database", "you learn the darkest-color cars john is capable of driving".

Does that sentence sound to you like you learn what color the cars might be, or that you would learn not only the color, but the make and model of every car of that color?

I suppose what makes this somewhat more confusing is that I don't think that sentence is technically grammatically correct. It has two nouns which could be the subject of the sentence (color and cars). One of those two nouns should be part of a prepositional phrase starting with the word "of". Either "the darkest-color of cars" or "cars of the darkest color". Given the phrasing used, I lean towards the former. I understand why the confusion existed in the first place though.

That being said, I can't think of a single spell, feat, effect, etc in the game which tells you what specific spells/powers a person has, while arcane sight already exists to tell you the levels. As such, I'd be inclined to say that alone lends support to Victim's reasoning.

Thanks for this good example, Corsair, to clarify the problem with the wording and the grammar. I would read darkest-colour or highest-level as an adjective. Otherwise, one would leave out the hyphen, I think. Given this, as a mathematician I'd say you'd learn the cars John is capable of driving and which have the darkest colour while not learning the colour itself. On the other hand, interpreting it this way it makes it clear that this meaning wasn't very likely intended by those who wrote the feat.

If the feat gave knowledge on the spells themselves, I'd say the feat would be less powerful than Greater Arcane Sight while still at about this high level. Thus, you are right in saying that it has to be understood in the sense that makes it much less powerful.

However, then it sounds more like a meta-game feat as I don't like the idea of characters knowing the concept of spell levels. (There shouldn't also be a feat disclosing hit points or HD.) Thus, I'd ban the feat altogether.

 

[RangerWickett]

On the other hand, in the games I play in we've come to a consensus that people actually do understand the concept of hit points and spell levels in the world. A cleric knows that it takes a lot more of his healing power to get his veteran friend healed up than it does his rookie friend, and he knows that the veteran friend was able to survive most hostile encounters than the rookie. While a codified numerical system might be beyond the ken of the common person, I figure scholars, philosophers, and scientists would have done experiments to let you actually measure hit points.

Likewise, lesser globe of invulnerability stops some spells, globe stops more. That's one way to measure spell level. Spellcasters know that some powers are beyond them entirely, though as they perfect their knowledge entire reams of spells become available. They understand that, damn, this magic missile wand costs 750, while the scorching ray wand is 4500, and the lightning bolt wand is 11250. Along the way, some amateur mathematician would have figured out the weird geometric progression, and how it ties into concepts like the number of pages required to scribe a spell and how many multiples of 6 seconds your spells last.

You would have a highly codified system of spell levels, at least among wizards. The other classes perhaps not so much, though again, the magic item market and the creation costs should provide clear evidence to what level different spells are.

 

[Corsair]

However, then it sounds more like a meta-game feat as I don't like the idea of characters knowing the concept of spell levels. (There shouldn't also be a feat disclosing hit points or HD.) Thus, I'd ban the feat altogether.

This confuses me. It's pretty clear to any spellcaster that there are some spells which are more powerful than others. They might not use the word level (then again, they might), but anyone capable of casting 0th and 1st level spells knows the distinction between the two.

 

[Nathan]

This confuses me. It's pretty clear to any spellcaster that there are some spells which are more powerful than others. They might not use the word level (then again, they might), but anyone capable of casting 0th and 1st level spells knows the distinction between the two.

Okay, it is more a role-playing issue. Of course, if we understand the D&D rules as the physical laws of our campaign worlds it is obvious that the sages in our campaigns will find out these rules pretty soon. However, if we see the D&D rules only as something that approximate the physical laws of our campaign worlds so that they become playable, some concepts are not in-game concepts anymore. For example, it makes sense as a rule but not as a physical (or rather biological) rule that every human can move exactly 60 feet every six seconds.

Of course the cleric knows that a veteran warrior can withstand more wounds than the average farmer and that it takes more divine "energy" to heal him. Similar, Detect Magic tells you basic information on the strength of a spell without having to resort to levels.

Also, please look at the descriptions of some spells, for example binding. Here is the relevant section

Regardless of the version of binding you cast, you can specify triggering conditions that end the spell and release the creature whenever they occur. These triggers can be as simple or elaborate as you desire, but the condition must be reasonable and have a likelihood of coming to pass. The conditions can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, or hit points don’t qualify. Once the spell is cast, its triggering conditions cannot be changed. Setting a release condition increases the save DC (assuming a saving throw is allowed) by 2.

It talks about intangibles. Thus I think that the Vatic Gaze feat (telling levels) contradicts the spirit of the core rules a bit.

Of course, I am open to other viewpoints!

P.S.:

Along the way, some amateur mathematician would have figured out the weird geometric progression, and how it ties into concepts like the number of pages required to scribe a spell and how many multiples of 6 seconds your spells last.

Just as a side note which may be ignored: A geometric progression a progression of the form 1, q, q^2, q^3, e.g. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... (exponential growth). I am not aware of any D&D rule using this progression. I think you mean an arithmetic progression (albeit of higher order), which means polynomial growth like it is used for item pricing.