Adjudicating Find the Path

[Sagiro]

As a DM, I find that my players often make good use of the spell find the path. And while it hasn't been a problem, we often have debates on just how this spell may be used, and I fear my decisions regarding it may (or have) become arbitrary.

First, here's the spell text from the SRD:

"The recipient of this spell can find the shortest, most direct physical route to a specified destination, be it the way into or out of a locale. The locale can be outdoors, underground, or even inside a maze spell. Find the path works with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale. The location must be on the same plane as you are at the time of casting.

The spell enables the subject to sense the correct direction that will eventually lead it to its destination, indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow or physical actions to take. For example, the spell enables the subject to sense trip wires or the proper word to bypass a glyph of warding. The spell ends when the destination is reached or the duration expires, whichever comes first. Find the path can be used to remove the subject and its companions from the effect of a maze spell in a single round."

While I don't have the PH with me, I recall that it gives these examples:

"a forest with a green dragon" (NO)
"the location of a hoard of platinum pieces" (NO)
"the exit to this dungeon" (YES)

From this I gather that you cannot name a location that might be one of several identical locations. But how would you adjudicate these examples:

"the forest where the green dragon Kizarvexius lives."
"the location of the nearest hoard of platinum pieces."
"the exit to this dungon guarded by the fewest creatures."
"the closest exit to this dungeon that is not the one we came through."
"the room in this dungeon that contains the Spear of Legendary Pointiness."

All of these are clearly specific locations, but some of them are defined only by an object or objects at that location, thus seeming to circumvent the intent of the spell that it not work on objects.

In other words, while the spell says it works "with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale," there's a fine line betwen "Joe" and "Joe's location." That is, while it's obvious you can use the spell to find "Joe's house," and cannot use it find "Joe," could you use it to find "The location where Joe currently exists?"

It would be nice to have a hard and fast rule by which any proposed location could be approved or denied. Is there one?

-Sagiro

 

[Artoomis]

...That is, while it's obvious you can use the spell to find "Joe's house," and cannot use it find "Joe," could you use it to find "The location where Joe currently exists?"

It would be nice to have a hard and fast rule by which any proposed location could be approved or denied. Is there one?

-Sagiro

It seems fairly obvious that finding the location where Joe is currently exists is essentially the same thing as finding Joe, and thus would not work.

Find the path works with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale.

Or, by extension, to locales identified by a creature's location. That should suffice as a nice hard and fist rule.

An important note is that, of course, no idea of distance is given, though you could infer that by triangulation with a fairly reasonable certainty of success, providing someone has at least some knowledge of basic geometry (general knowledge may be enough, so ranks in knowledge(geometry) may not be required).

 

[Rackhir]

I think the key is a generic vs specific location. "The exit from this dungeon" is a specific location, even if there are multiple exits (I'd assume that it would default to the nearest). Where as "a forest" is a generic location. Attempts to narrow down the location to a specific one by using objects as the specifier would be useless, since items can't be used as a reference otherwise you would be able to simply ask the route to them directly. You can only use locations as a specifier.

So of the examples you gave the "Exit guarded by the fewest number of creatures" would not be permitted, since the players are trying to reference objects (the guards) rather than a location (other than the one we came in).

How's that?

 

[Sagiro]

I think the key is a generic vs specific location. "The exit from this dungeon" is a specific location, even if there are multiple exits (I'd assume that it would default to the nearest). Where as "a forest" is a generic location. Attempts to narrow down the location to a specific one by using objects as the specifier would be useless, since items can't be used as a reference otherwise you would be able to simply ask the route to them directly. You can only use locations as a specifier.

So of the examples you gave the "Exit guarded by the fewest number of creatures" would not be permitted, since the players are trying to reference objects (the guards) rather than a location (other than the one we came in).

How's that?

I agree generally that defining locations only by objects/creatures is violating the spirit of the spell. But consider your last paragraph, where (if I understand you correctly) you posit that:

"The closest exit other than the one we came through" = OK
"The exit guarded by the fewest number of creatures" = Not OK

In both of these cases, you're modifying a location's definition based on creatures. In the first case, you're defining the exit by where creatures ("we") had or had not been. In the second case, you're defining it by where creatures are right now. Why the distinction? When you get down to it, it's very hard to define a location without using any creatures or objects in the definition. "Joe's house" is clearly a location, but you have to reference an object "Joe" to define it.

Put another way, I think we'd all agree that a) "Joe's house" is a legal target for this spell, and that "Joe's house" == "The house where Joe spends most of his time." (Or perhaps "The house that Joe refers to as his own residence.") Why, then could you not find "The dungeon exit where guardian monsters spend most of their time." And while this is admittedly a stretch, it seems that if you can target "Joe's house," you should also be able to target "The Ogre King's lair," though both of these places are defined entirely by objects. (Joe, or the Ogre King.)

Please excuse my devil's-advocatism, but I think it's necessary to get to the heart of the matter.

-Sagiro

 

[Camarath]

In other words, while the spell says it works "with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale," there's a fine line betwen "Joe" and "Joe's location." That is, while it's obvious you can use the spell to find "Joe's house," and cannot use it find "Joe," could you use it to find "The location where Joe currently exists?"

IMO if the location you are trying to find depends on the presence or absence of creatures or objects then it it not an eligible location for the spell.

Since Joe's House could be the name of a specific location that will not nessecarialy change if Joe does not live there anymore it is acceptable but "the location where Joe currently exists" is not one fixed location but instead a temporary designation for a location based on Joe presence and thus is ineligible. But since many locations such as Joe's house are defined by the objects or creatures in them one has to be careful that a location that is reffered to in that way is not transient. In other words if no specific house is Joe's House but rather any house could be Joe's house based on whether Joe lives there or not then the spell will not work.

What I am saying is that if a fixed location is reffered to by a name that reffers to the creatures or objects that are present there then that is ok as long as changing what the location is called to a proper name would not change which location one wishes to go to. Thus if Kizarvexius is known to live in Darkmere Forest and if when asking for the forest where the green dragon Kizarvexius lives one means Darkmere Forest that is ok but if one means any forest in which Kizarvexius lives then that is not ok.

Thats just my take on it.

 

[Artoomis]

..."The closest exit other than the one we came through" = OK
"The exit guarded by the fewest number of creatures" = Not OK

In both of these cases, you're modifying a location's definition based on creatures. In the first case, you're defining the exit by where creatures ("we") had or had not been. In the second case, you're defining it by where creatures are right now. Why the distinction? ...-Sagiro

The first is okay because it references your current location, which is how the spell works. It really need to be phased: "The second closest exit to this dungeon." Obvioulsy, everything about the spell is relative to your current location.

The second is not okay becasue the location is defined by other creatures or non-fixed objects (large fixed objects really are locations).

 

[Rackhir]

I agree generally that defining locations only by objects/creatures is violating the spirit of the spell. But consider your last paragraph, where (if I understand you correctly) you posit that:

"The closest exit other than the one we came through" = OK
"The exit guarded by the fewest number of creatures" = Not OK

In both of these cases, you're modifying a location's definition based on creatures. In the first case, you're defining the exit by where creatures ("we") had or had not been. In the second case, you're defining it by where creatures are right now. Why the distinction? When you get down to it, it's very hard to define a location without using any creatures or objects in the definition. "Joe's house" is clearly a location, but you have to reference an object "Joe" to define it.

Put another way, I think we'd all agree that a) "Joe's house" is a legal target for this spell, and that "Joe's house" == "The house where Joe spends most of his time." (Or perhaps "The house that Joe refers to as his own residence.") Why, then could you not find "The dungeon exit where guardian monsters spend most of their time." And while this is admittedly a stretch, it seems that if you can target "Joe's house," you should also be able to target "The Ogre King's lair," though both of these places are defined entirely by objects. (Joe, or the Ogre King.)

Please excuse my devil's-advocatism, but I think it's necessary to get to the heart of the matter.

-Sagiro

I'm not defining both locations by creatures. The first location refers to a specific entrance and thus a specific location. The fact that it is the one that they have been to is simply a way of specifying that location. You could phrase it with many other adjectives. For example if you phrased it "An exit of this dungeon other than the entrance" it has the same meaning and doesn't refer to where the characters have been or any other creatures/objects in the dungeon. If you were feeling strict you might wish to make them use some additional specification with regards to the exit. such as the "north-east exit", but the location they entered from is in no way an ambigious or unclear location reference. If the dungeon had an unlimited or nearly unlimited number of exits, then you could justly have the spell fail as they would then be refering to an essentially generic location.

There is no way to refer to the least guarded exit, without referencing the guards, which are not part of the location.

 

[Tzarevitch]

As a DM, I find that my players often make good use of the spell find the path. And while it hasn't been a problem, we often have debates on just how this spell may be used, and I fear my decisions regarding it may (or have) become arbitrary.

First, here's the spell text from the SRD:

"The recipient of this spell can find the shortest, most direct physical route to a specified destination, be it the way into or out of a locale. The locale can be outdoors, underground, or even inside a maze spell. Find the path works with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale. The location must be on the same plane as you are at the time of casting.

The spell enables the subject to sense the correct direction that will eventually lead it to its destination, indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow or physical actions to take. For example, the spell enables the subject to sense trip wires or the proper word to bypass a glyph of warding. The spell ends when the destination is reached or the duration expires, whichever comes first. Find the path can be used to remove the subject and its companions from the effect of a maze spell in a single round."

While I don't have the PH with me, I recall that it gives these examples:

"a forest with a green dragon" (NO)
"the location of a hoard of platinum pieces" (NO)
"the exit to this dungeon" (YES)

From this I gather that you cannot name a location that might be one of several identical locations. But how would you adjudicate these examples:

"the forest where the green dragon Kizarvexius lives."
"the location of the nearest hoard of platinum pieces."
"the exit to this dungon guarded by the fewest creatures."
"the closest exit to this dungeon that is not the one we came through."
"the room in this dungeon that contains the Spear of Legendary Pointiness."

All of these are clearly specific locations, but some of them are defined only by an object or objects at that location, thus seeming to circumvent the intent of the spell that it not work on objects.

#1 Above = NO. There is a difference between "the forest where the green dragon Kizarvexius lives" and the Forest of Kizarevexius, where the green dragon lives. The first is asking the spell to locate where the dragon is, the second is asking to locate the specific definite location, i.e. the forest, which happens to contain the dragon.

#2 Above = NO. The spell is actually being asked to find platinum pieces not a known location that contains platinum pieces. The phrasing is an attempt to disguise what the caster is actually looking for. There is a difference between, "lead me to a location that contains platinum pieces", and "lead me to this location, which contains platinum pieces".

#3 Above = NO. If the spell does not locate creatures it certainly can't count them.

#4 Above = I would say no to this. The caster isn't specifying a destination, he is trying to get a value call on which other exit is closest. The spell only shows the path to a specified location it does not judge how far that destination is. It also doesn't choose one from another. If the caster is looking for an exit, he must specify the exit.

#5 Above = This is the same as #1 but with a spear instead of a dragon. The caster is really trying to find the spear and attaching the spear's name to a possible location in hopes of meeting the spell's requirements. What he caster is really asking is, "take me to where the spear is right now." "Take me to the Reliquary of the Spear" is a valid request for the spell.

In other words, while the spell says it works "with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale," there's a fine line betwen "Joe" and "Joe's location." That is, while it's obvious you can use the spell to find "Joe's house," and cannot use it find "Joe," could you use it to find "The location where Joe currently exists?"

No. In my opinion, there is an area where the definition gets fuzzy, but it isn't where you are arguing that it is. Most of the examples you gave are rather obvious attempts to find Joe not find Joe's Place. A location for the purposes of the spell can't be one that is defined simply because a creature or an object HAPPENS to be there otherwise effectively the spell CAN be used to find creatures and objects and it doesn't do that. There needs to be some sense of permanency to the reference you are using to the location.

The real interesting question comes up if Joe has been in the house you are looking for for a while but then goes away to another house. If you are looking for Joe's House and that is the only reference you have for it (say you find a map that says Joe may have hidden his treasure somewhere in his house) does the spell take you to it?

Joe's Old House may work as a reference for the spell, but what if he had several "old houses". Which one if any would the spell take you to? Does the spell reference by most recent? Oldest? Closest? Could the spell even find the old houses because they are no longer "Joe's House"? Is it still a valid location for the spell when the one reference that you had to the location was valid for a while but is questionable now. That is where the definition gets fuzzy.

Tzarevitch

 

[Liquidsabre]

A location requires either an absolute deifinition or a widely known and accepted definition. So an "exit" is an absolute definition, and cannot be refuted, so it is a legal location. The "Palace" is also a legal location as it is widely defined as the palace by all.

"Joe's House" is not a viable location unless it is widely known and defined as "Joe's House" by name, as has already been mentioned by others. Thus also the "old hag's cave" is also not a viable location for the spell. The "Karthim Mountains", "Red Falls", and "The Allira Crossing" are all viable locations as these are named and known locations. Again, "Tira Doomweaver's Castle" is NOT a viable location but "Doomweaver Castle" (as might be the place's actual name) would be.

So a legal location can only be: A widely known and accepted name (as with "the Palace" or "Doomweaver Castle") or a defined location such as an "exit", "entrance", "cellar", and "the highest bluff within the valley".

Pretty simple, don't let your players try to cheat their ways out of this and abuse the spell.

 

[Camarath]

So a legal location can only be: A widely known and accepted name (as with "the Palace" or "Doomweaver Castle") or a defined location such as an "exit", "entrance", "cellar", and "the highest bluff within the valley".

I would also allow characters to use character specific names for fixed locations even if they are they only ones who refer to the location by that name. Thus if the "old hag's cave" means one specific cave that they fought a hag in or consulted an oracle in then I would allow the spell to work. If it means a cave that the character's have not been to and can not identify but where the Hag that they are looking for lives then I would not allow the spell to work. If the characters do not know the location they are seeking I would force them to either use an accepted name or a use a description that uniquely defines the location other than through the objects and creatures associated with the location.