Topic: Question about the "Finding" spell

[MariusH]

I was wondering if any of you had used the "Finding" spell (locating ways, closed channeling). The way I read the spell, you have to describe something you are not familiar with, and if such an item just happens to be within range, you locate it: "I wish to find a cloak of invisibility, black, 5' long, weighing 1 lb. Is there such an item within range?" Seems strange and pretty useless to me. Or is it meant to be like the "location" spell, but without the severe limits of description? Could I for example say I wish to locate the King's amulet (not knowing anything about what it looks like), and if it's within range, I find it? What say you, Oh People of the Forum?

[Marrethiel]

Aragorn: GM, I want to Cast Finding.
GM: What are you looking for?
Aragorn: A herb that cures stabbing icky poison from Nusgul
GM [sighs] knowing that the herb does exist and was hoping the player would finally develop some survival type skills: The spell leads you to a kitchen herb you recognise as Kinsfoil.
Aragron: Sweet!

Okay, it is a stretch for that spell, but I think it useful still.
It might be more realistically used as:
GM: You failed your roll  to find Kinsfoil, time is running out!
Aragorn: You said with the partial success that I was in the right area, I use Finding until I run out of PP's.

[MariusH]

Finding herbs is not an issue here - the player in question is an Animist, and has no problem locating useful herbs... :-)

However, finding specific artifacts IS an issue. But the players only vaguely know what they are looking for, so a "location" spell won't work, since it requires a detailed description of the item. Not sure how helful "finding" would be even with my second interpretation, though, due to its very limited range.

[arakish]

The way I have always handled "finding" or "locating" spells is that the spell caster must have intimate knowledge of the item, or type of item, to learn exact locations.  The less the caster knows about the item, then the more towards only knowing the direction towards an item.  And that is provided the item is within the spell's range.  If there is no such item within the spell's range, then nothing.  The spell and PPs go poof.

For items of power, such as the Cloak of Invisibility, I give them an RR using the level of the highest level of spell needed to create the item as the item's level versus the caster's level.  If RR succeeds, then the spell and PPs go poof.  If RR fails, then all the caster gets is the direction towards the item.  Again, this is if the item is within spell's range.

Always, I have NEVER allowed the spell caster to know the exact location of the item, unless it is a normal mundane item such as a hand mirror.  I have always all those types of spells gave was a direction, and possibly a distance.  All dependent upon how intimate the caster's knowledge is for the item.

More examples.  If the hand mirror belongs to the caster, then s/he will know direction, distance, and exact location.  If the hand mirror belongs to someone else, then the most the caster could get is a general direction and general distance.

However, if you are the GM, then it is your interpretation of the spell description that counts most.  Hope helps.

rmfr

[MariusH]

Thanks for replying, Arakish, but unfortunately that doesn't help me. We use "Location" as written - IF it works, you get direction and distance, but you need to describe it pretty well for the spell to work. If the description is not good enough, or if the object is not within range, the spell and PPs just go "poof".

What I ask about, is the difference between "Finding" and "Location". "Location" seems pretty straight-forward, but if I take the "Finding" spell literally as written, it's very weird and rather pointless. What's the odds of describing something I have never heard or seen of, and having something that fits that description accurately, just by chance be within a rather short range? But if I can "describe" it in more vague terms, like "The chieftains missing goblet" (not knowing anything about that goblet), it becomes rather useful.

[arakish]

Ah, I see now, said the blind man.

Usually the way I interpret the difference for "finding" and "location" (which I should have said before) is that "finding" is used for items, "location" is used for locales or places.

I know the descriptions do not specify this, but it is how I have always defined the difference.

rmfr

[jdale]

Or is it meant to be like the "location" spell, but without the severe limits of description?

That's how I read the list. Location requires a very specific description. Finding does not.

I notice that Finding has a shorter range, in addition to being higher level. That makes sense only if it is superior in other ways. Since the notes about Location are very specific with regard to the description, but only refer to Location, I assume those requirements do not apply to other spells on the list.

[MariusH]

The higher level and shorter range was why I wanted to interpret "Finding" that way too, jdale - and also that the way I interpret the text literally, the spell would make no sense at all. Thanks for your comment.

arakish: Interesting. That would be quite different from how we use the spells. Also, it would make the "location" spells rather useless, I think, since "Guidance" and "Divine Guidance" would always be better than any higher level "location" spell.