Why is it 9th level? Anyone used it much?

[CRGreathouse]

Hey, there are going to be inconsistencies in any ruling I was just pointing it out that I believe you are useing a houserule. But of course they could have put that or in their accidentally, it wouldnt be like typoes never happen after all.

It's quite possible that the rules were intended to disallow non-opposed skill checks, and the wording seems to support this. It's also possible that they wanted to allow all skill checks and either screwed up the wording later without thinking, or were really awkward in their phrasing.

Thanks for pointing that out, though. It's certainly in need for rewriting--power or grammar, or maybe both.

 

[Scion]

For the level and the benefit it should probably apply to just about 'any' roll (but only apply once, like for a targetted dispel, you really want that first spell gone so get a bonus, but the rest of the checks dont get it).

As for the thread at hand, foresight needs to be 'upped' somehow. Whether by given a few more abilities or knocked way down in level, possibly both. As it is the one time I have seen it cast it did nothing effectively. 'shouldnt I have known about that? oh, sure, you arent as flatfooted as everyone else.' 'shouldnt I be able to tell that was coming? no, why would you?'

sure he wasnt a great dm, but I dislike most spells with such vague language now

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've got the feeling it's worth talking over with the GM before taking this, just to thrash out exactly what it does first. I've had GMs like the one Scion's talking about - would nerf this to be slightly less useful than a casting of True Strike.

I like the idea of it. Although I've never run a game for a party with 9th level magic, sure it could be a proper 'GM headache' spell if it isn't thought about.

A use for it - borrow lots of GP from organised 'thieves guild' criminals - use foresight while placing it as a bet. If you're betting on the wrong horse, this really ought to warn you! Sure most GMs would have no problem with this plan.

 

[Dthamilaye]

Doesn't the Foresight also act as 'common sense' or , well, spider sense of the user.

Ie, the caster walks down a corridor, and the Foresight always notifies him if he is about to step on a trap, or if there is a monster waiting or if the roof is loose and might accidentally drop down?

The caster could go to a chest and just before nothing happens, he would know if there is trap, or any other harming property in or on it.

Caster is about to read a magical book he has found. If there is any danger, Foresight would tell about it.

In addition to all this, Foresight would also give countermeasures, how to protect yourself from the trap or whatever.

Of course, the protection could be simply " Don't touch the chest".

Anyway, I DO think Foresight is enormously useful. In fact, so much that I am thinking of removing it from the game (With Greater Arcane Sight . I hate that spell).

 

[jessemock]

This is not a spell that was in 1st Ed. AD&D. It must have been introduced in 2nd Ed. -- that's part of the reason it sticks out like a sore thumb among the other 9th level wizard spells.

No; you're completely wrong: this spell is in 1st Edition, and the text clearly states that the DM must hand over the module (or adventure notes--whatever) to the player.

The appropriate citation:

This spells allows (at last!) a chance for a player to-quite literally-turn the tables on the Dungeon Master. Allow the player his moment of grace with as much politeness as you can muster-dishing out your revenge will be all the sweeter once the spell runs out its apportioned duration.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No; you're completely wrong: this spell is in 1st Edition, and the text clearly states that the DM must hand over the module (or adventure notes--whatever) to the player.

I'm afraid that you're in the wrong here - it isn't in the 1e players handbook. I've just looked.

Maybe you mean it was introduced as a new spell in a module somewhere prior to 2e?

Anyway, it certainly wasn't in the original 1e spellbooks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm afraid that you're in the wrong here - it isn't in the 1e players handbook. I've just looked.

Nor Unearthed Arcana.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

No; you're completely wrong: this spell is in 1st Edition, and the text clearly states that the DM must hand over the module (or adventure notes--whatever) to the player.

The hell I would. All those "use that to screw your players big time" and "cheat here!!" margins are not for the players' eyes ;-).

 

[foxylady]

No, really--why do you think it's weak? In my experience it's the most-used sorcerer/wizard spell 7th level and up.

The real weakness of MoP is that it merely adds a huge bonus, rather than changing what you roll. In most cases, I'd much rather have a +5 on my save bonus combined with "no autofail on 1" than a +25 save bonus.

 

[dcollins]

No; you're completely wrong: this spell is in 1st Edition, and the text clearly states that the DM must hand over the module (or adventure notes--whatever) to the player.

The appropriate citation:

Is this like an early April Fools or something? You really need to provide a book-name-and-page-number to qualify something as a "citation".