Two tiered question regarding Discern Location

[Greenfield]

The Discern Location spell has been called overpowered. It's also been called useless. Depends on the game and the DM I suppose.

To cast it, you need to have seen the person or object that you're trying to locate, *OR* have something that the target once owned.

In our game world, which is based on the latter years of the Roman Empire, slavery is a simple fact of life and nobody thinks it's "wrong". (except a few PCs who somehow have a modern morality in an ancient world.)

So the question might be, what if we have a slave of the person we're looking for? Does that qualify?

Alternately, what if we have some money that slave spent, money that came from the master and was therefore something the master/target of the spell, once owned.

Technically either one should work. A lot of DMs don't like "Technically".

Speaking in game metaphysics, the slave's personal aura might overwhelm the master's. The coin, being one of many, of no personal interest, and having been owned by so many, might not have enough of their personal signature/aura to be distinguished.

Speaking as I might as a DM, I could argue that "once owned" implies a personal possession, rather than items that casually pass hand to hand. As for the slave, I could argue that "something owned" implies a "thing", which a person isn't.

What's your take? Feel free to address any or all of these aspects.

 

[Crothian]

It's an 8th level spell it should be powerful. If you have a coin that the person once used then that should be as good clothing or any other object. If in your campaign world people can own people that that should work too. You can either know the name or the location but since it targets one creature one must have an idea at least on who that is.

I have never seen what the problem is with the spell unless it is feeding into the teleport to big bad and ambush him. But I don't see a problem with that either. Its part of the game and if the players find that fun then great.

 

[Greenfield]

We kind of short circuited the old "Scry and Fry" routine by removing Teleport from the game. Same for Greater Teleport.

You want to do a precision drop-in? You need Gate, or some divine guidance.

 

[Crothian]

If you get rid of teleport then I really don't see why a dm would be worried about the spell

 

[delericho]

The Discern Location spell has been called overpowered. It's also been called useless. Depends on the game and the DM I suppose.

To cast it, you need to have seen the person or object that you're trying to locate, *OR* have something that the target once owned.

Nitpick: "To find a creature with the spell, you must have seen the creature or have some item that once belonged to it."

In our game world, which is based on the latter years of the Roman Empire, slavery is a simple fact of life and nobody thinks it's "wrong". (except a few PCs who somehow have a modern morality in an ancient world.)

So the question might be, what if we have a slave of the person we're looking for? Does that qualify?

A person isn't an item, so no.

Alternately, what if we have some money that slave spent, money that came from the master and was therefore something the master/target of the spell, once owned.

Yep, per RAW that one counts.

What's your take?

Firstly: ask your DM. The above is my reading per the RAW, but he or she may rule differently.

IMC, it's been a very long time since I've had a caster reach a level where he could cast 8th level spells (or, at least, carry on beyond that point), and I don't think I've ever seen it cast. However, I'm torn: on the one hand, I'm very much inclined to regard that "some item" requirement to mean something of at least marginal personal significance to the target of the spell (which would usually, but not always, rule out "some money" - how often does any particular bit of money mean much to you?). On the other hand, it is an eighth level spell, and those are supposed to be extremely powerful. Heck, at 8th level I might be inclined to drop the "some item" requirement entirely!

Hmm... yes, I think that's what I'd do: drop the "some item" requirement for this spell entirely.