eliakon wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:Perhaps, but math is math, and logic is logic.
But "how I want clairvoyance to work at my table" is not math, nor logic
The power is pretty specific on what it does and does not provide
Agreed.
The spell provides 58%+2%/level chance of successfully having any vision (+5% if the person involved is a friend or loved one) via deliberate meditation.
Spontaneous visions about "anything that might hurt or change the world (including people and places)" can occur at the whim of the GM, but are "extremely rare."
The message can be a sudden feeling that somebody is in need, or (more often) a flash of insight, "an image that races through the mind."
when people try to claim that it will provide more than what the book says it does, that moves from "logic" into "house rules"
Just as when people try to claim that it will provide LESS than what the book says, or when they try to claim (directly or indirectly) that what the book provides is
necessarily and
always useless.
The book uses words like "not clear"
Actually, the book says this:
"
Often all the details are not clear, but the potential danger is."
"Often" does not mean "always." So
some of the time all the details ARE clear.
Even when not all of the details are clear, some are clear.
And the potential danger always is.
It talks about how it can be a simple impression, or a sudden flash of insight, or a brief image.
None of those match up with "Detailed information that can be rigorously recorded, and analyzed and correlated in detail"
The potential danger is always clear in a successful vision.
Sometimes all of the details are clear.
So let's say that you have 100 psychics. Let's say that they're all level 1, so they each individually have just the basic 58% chance of a successful vision.
Let's say that these 100 psychics are all trying to have a vision.
I'm not a math expert, but I'd expect roughly 58 of those 100 psychics would generally be expected to have a successful vision.
Of those 58 visions, "often all the details are not clear."
But not always.
So the GM (or the writer of the books, if we're talking meta-plot) decides what percentage of those 58 visions constitutes "often."
I don't see any reason to believe that "often" is intended to describe 58 out of 58 successful visions.
I kinda think that 57 out of 58 times would also be a bit overkill for "often."
"Often" just means "frequently" or "in many instances."
It's not necessarily even describing a majority of cases.
If 20 out of 58 visions were not clear on all details, that would constitute "often all the details are not clear."
And that would leave 38 cases where yes, all the details
were clear.
This is important, because (and I apparently cannot stress this enough):
The claim is not that Clairvoyance would always detect every possible attackThe primary claim is this:
Clairvoyance could possibly prevent any one possible attack/eventThe distinction between these two claims is very important, because the purpose of discussing Clairvoyance is NOT to say "X is most definitely proof against Attack Y," but rather to shoot down any claims that Attack Y will most definitely succeed.
It is NOT "The Coalition would always be able to prevent every terrorist attack."
It is likewise NOT "the Coalition would necessarily be able to prevent [insert whatever attack is being discussed]."
It is that anybody who claims that an attack would
necessarily succeed, that there is NO way for a nation (or even party) with Clairvoyant defenders to possibly identify or stop the attack beforehand,
is incorrect according to the rules of the game.
Because the books are clear on how Clairvoyance works: it CAN sometimes be used to anticipate and thwart certain attacks, dangers, and other events.
That is setting aside the idea that all these 'clears' are going to have incredible memories to recall every little detail of these visions so that they can be entered in this imaginary database.
Nobody has ever claimed that.
The claim is that if a nation with many psychics had a database where psychics could enter a description of their visions for cross-reference, then the overall chances of collecting useful information (or putting together pieces of a puzzle) would increase significantly.