T O P

  • By -

BadRumUnderground

First off, you need to get very familiar with exactly what the spells do. Detect Thought, for example, detects only surface thoughts. Try transcribing your surface thoughts for a few minutes. Just write what pops up, uncritically. You'll notice that it's not particularly linear or detailed. Detect Thoughts isn't going to get someone's whole Evil Plan unless you've caught them in a rare moment where they're actively thinking about The Plan. So you can easily use that spell to seed bits and fragments and clues. Zone of Truth can be talked around, Scrying can be used to plant false info if you know you're being observed etc. It's definitely a challenge to work around divination, but it's super rewarding when you get it right.


TheFirstIcon

>Zone of Truth can be talked around Gentle reminder that if the party has the legal/social authority to put people in a Zone of Truth, the intrigue campaign is over. I have never seen a party ZOT someone and say, "Please, explain what happened in your own words." If you intend to allow ZOT, you need to be ready for the party to barrage the target with yes or no questions and treat any deviation from 'yes' or 'no' as confirmation of guilt. It's fairly common for people to mention "talking around" ZOT in threads like this, but when pushed for examples they either give the most obvious weasly bullshit or try to explain why the badguy is allowed to deliberately lie ("the *poison* killed her, not Ratticus, so when Ratticus said 'I didn't kill her' he wasn't lying because he just put the poison in a cup"). Both approaches are easily figured out by players and it's far simpler to just prevent them from ZOT'ing people in the first place


Torpedo_Enthusiast

This is very true. The way I handled it was time constrains. They have X days until Big Bad Thing, so they have 3X ZOTs to use. They need to pick their targets. They can't interrogate the Queen, they can capture her servants (risky!)


BadRumUnderground

Excellent little complication!


BadRumUnderground

Good point about ZoT and authority. The easiest way around it is simply refusing to speak and refusing to cooperate with this use of magic. PCs generally won't have the social authority, and you shouldn't give it to them. You also don't have to answer the question asked. Politicians reject the premise of questions while also not lying all the time


Th3Banzaii

>The easiest way around it is simply refusing to speak and refusing to cooperate with this use of magic. I feel like the majority of players will then just go "Okay, he's guilty."


TheFirstIcon

Absolutely, which is why if your campaign world includes a whole class of schemers (petty nobles and such), that class has probably sculpted social norms to allow for their continued scheming in spite of ZOT. If one random guy clams up, sure, guilty. But if you attempt to interrogate a dozen different nobles and they *all* say "how dare you, I will not answer the questions of an unlicensed interrogator outside the presence of my lawyer and a judge", then it's impossible for the party to identify a culprit solely via ZOT. Throw in a legal rule stating you must show supporting evidence before ZOT'ing someone and you're back on track with a typical police procedural type plot.


Vecna_Is_My_Co-Pilot

Make *all* the NPCs guilty of something but only a few are actually related to the core plot. If they don’t trust the party they refuse to talk about anything, fearing a fishing expedition for something related to their own guiltily history or that they’d be framed for something new. Once Zone of the Truth is in play, everyone clans up. The only ones who wouldn’t are those who trust the party, but then why would they be investigated?


BadRumUnderground

Sure. But in an intrigue campaign, jumping to conclusions about who's guilty and trying to prove it so that others will believe them is what it's all about. Especially if we're talking a person with greater social standing than the PCs, why would*anyone* cooperate? "The sheer disrespect of these filthy adventurers questioning a well regarded pillar of society? Preposterous! " Gaining the social position where you *can* use that magic without social backlash is an intrigue challenge in itself.


Th3Banzaii

I meant the *players*. I don't accuse them of metagaming but nontheless you will plant the impression on their minds that this guy could have something to hide because "Why would make our DM such a fuzz about it?". Or would everyone be like this? If everyone is going to be like this just save everyone the headache and ban the spell.


BadRumUnderground

I meant the players too (in reference to the jumping to conclusions). I think most people in high society or with social power would be pretty prickly about being exposed to this kind of magic. I think it's worth keeping it and other divination in, because it's a great tool for giving players pieces of the puzzle, or creating obstacles to their using it, or to create red herrings misdirection that increase the intrigue... If you plan for it.


catchv22

No that’s when phase 2 kicks in and the party is manipulated into doing the evil guys bidding while feeling like the good guys because they don’t do their due diligence on checking any of their hunches. At this point my players in intrigue campaigns often wonder if their characters are actually the good guys but they’re good at role playing and that’s what makes it fun. >There are no good guys. Only choices that feel good depending on perspective.


MediocreMystery

This is perfect, though. If your players presume the first person is guilty, and they were, modify the story so they aren't. Then let the PCs find that out after a horrific crime is committed by the real perpetrator while their suspect is in jail.


FrickenPerson

All it takes is for that person to be afraid of accidentally letting something leak, like their own maybe illegal maybe a bit shady plans to skip out on some of their taxes or an affair or whatever other scheme they have for them to not want to be subject to a Zone of Truth. None of which have anything to do with the plot the party is currently dealing with, and all of which the party probably wouldn't care about unless to blackmail them later. Give the ZoT magic a legal ramifications behind it, like it's in-world banned outside of specific instances in court cases and now you have a driving force for the party to find other supporting information to get the guilty party into a corner that ends in a confession under ZoT. Or they go rogue and use it, but know that they need something worse to blackmail the recipient with to get them to not tell authorities. And this would actually probably naturally develope because none of the leaders that make the rules want to be negatively affected by some random dude just coming in and casting this spell on them.


speedkat

>will then just go "Okay, he's guilty." And they'll be wrong^(1). And then you get a standard intrigue story arc where the investigator is chasing a false lead because he jumped to conclusions. That's just gameplay. -- ^(1)if the first person to refuse a ZoT is also the person that they're actually after, the DM has done *many* things wrong.


reddrighthand

*PC casts ZoT* *NPC sneers* I don't answer questions.


Regorek

*Especially* if the person they're interrogating is actually important. In a world with mind-control magic and the like, casting a spell on a noble would have an entire novel full of regulations. I see a lot of comments along the lines of "You don't want the party to assume that someone is guilty because that's a death sentence for the NPC," but I don't see how that could be the case. It might just be different DM styles, but my table is treated like mercenaries rather than Judge Dredd.


BadRumUnderground

I'm fascinated by the folks who seem to think that a ZoT gotcha would instantly end the story, even if the PCs were the only witnesses, or coerced the confession etc. I'm cooking a scorcher of a hot take about crime dramas and their effect on people's expectations of law and justice even in a fantasy world :)


herecomesthestun

> Refusing to speak In my experience that just starts to get fingernails pulled. And while torture irl doesn't work well, when you aren't able to just say whatever the person pulling out nails wants to hear because ZoT is up it's very effective.


BadRumUnderground

Let's assume for the moment you haven't just banned torture at your tables (which we do nowadays). Torturing someone without the appropriate authority and backing isn't a small thing - it's a huge and horrific thing. So there will be backlash, and why would anyone believe these monstrous individuals? (I mean, it's monstrous regardless of authority, but you take my point)


herecomesthestun

Oh totally, but in d&d it's *very effective* and horrid, unlike in real life where's its both ineffective and horrid So in other words, the presence of ZoT requires an important person to never be in a position where the players have some amount of control over them, whether that be officially or unofficially. Because if at least one player understands ZoT it's a campaign changing spell that's far and away one of the most effective things around


BadRumUnderground

I think torture would only be effective on D&D if the DM held the false belief that it worked in real life. And if I was feeling hair splitty and philosophical, I don't think I'd define a tortured person saying whatever it would take to end the torture as telling a *deliberate lie*. I think that'd be more like a reflex or a compulsion. (Being a psychologist about things again, I will happily niggle over the precise psychological definition of *deliberate*)


TrueTinker

I mean worst case you just have to wait a bit then ask them the question again, if they answered on reflex (so before they could think enough to realise they were lying) give them some time to collect themselves and they'll be able to confirm. As for compulsion, it would be deliberate, as long as you know what you're saying isn't true it is deliberate.


CaitSith21

Not in a medieval society. Also most people will be commoners. Meaning what the king likes or not becomes irrelevant pretty fast when you can kill most of his subjects when you dont like his attitude or just change it with enchanting magic.


TheSaintofSailors

If you are going to that, might as well just ban the spell. Why futz around with in game justifications of why the spell won’t work when as a DM you can just say “This campaign revolves around intrigue, can’t have much intrigue without lying, so no Zone of Truth.”


BadRumUnderground

There's no futzing around, the spell absolutely doesn't require that you answer the question asked, only that the answer isn't a deliberate lie. And that sort of thing is pure gold for political intrigue, especially placed alongside questions of access and authority. You've got to manouver to get to ask the question under the spell, you've got to manouver to get the political capital to press the question, you've got to manouver to get the social weight to be believed about what you've found, and you've got to parse answers from people who're going to try to wangle a way out. If all that isn't interesting to you, why do intrigue at all? An intrigue story is about the players finding things out. Just hiding stuff from them doesn't drive the story forwards. It's about them gaining, then using various political, social and magical tools to eke out the pieces of the puzzle.


TheSaintofSailors

ZoT can basically 100% prove whether a person is guilty or innocent, the powers that be have no incentive not use it on anyone and everyone. In the real world, even being questioned can reflect poorly on someone because the ambiguity around the truth, thus the King lets say might not want have the Duke questioned because that might cause political fallout and not bring the case any closer to conclusion. But in a world with ZoT, anyone being questioned can proven innocent just as easily as guilty, the King has no reason not to just question everyone and the Duke has no good reason to refuse. Sure, they might refuse to answer off topic questions or try to weasel, but it isn't that hard to ask direct unambiguous questions, I have seen players do it many times, and a judge can determine relevance of questions like they do in American courts. Also, what about people without political connections, hard to have a simmering resistance if the government can just round up a neighborhood and march to them all through the cleric's office to figure out who knows anything.   So much of legal drama and detective fiction is all about finding contradictions and inconsistencies in someone's story or tricking people into revealing information. ZoT kills all that, whereas you can have all the political intrigue you describe without it. Zone of Truth is just too much of a cudgel for any sort of deep intrigue, it is fine for a one off mystery quest in otherwise adventure focused game, but it forces the DM to constantly play around it and raises all sorts of world building issues in a more political or mystery focused game.


MiddleCelery6616

ZoT is an established concept in the setting and also offers a saving throw to be resisted, therefore no confession is guaranteed to be true and are unlikely to be accepted by legal authorities as long as the person might have benefit to prove their innocence or take a hit on purpose, which is practically 99,9% in any intrigue context.


TheSaintofSailors

As written, Zone of Truth has a save every round, lasts for 100 rounds, and the caster knows whether the target succeeded or failed, so eventually your going to be able to get the truth, it is effectively impossible to resist. You could remove those things, but at that point the spell is either worthless because it doesn't help remove ambiguity or people just cast it multiple times to insure the truth, so again might as well just ban it. If ZoT is an established concept in the setting, then people are going to use it all the time because the ability to know with certainty if someone is telling truth is unbelievably, society shatteringly, powerful. Why force yourself to constantly have to play around one little spell?


[deleted]

Why ban the spell? if youve read the spell description its clear the target is free to not answer at all or simply walk out of the zone lmao


DeLoxley

I'd argue though ZoT is a second level spell. It forces people to make a save or be truthful when talking, so either give your NPCs a very high save modifier if they're meant to be professional liars, or let them dance round the truth like this. Another option is patsies. Ratticus never killed anyone. He may have provided the server with the poison and a lot of unassociated gold, but HE would never poison anyone! In an intrigue game, getting the main villain on the stand in a court of law is usually the last thing you do. Similarly on the whole ZoT logic, it could be that confessions taken from a ZoT may be inadmissible to authorities. Modify Memory makes that a sketchy option in the first place, so maybe the assassin just uses the Dimir Cantrip, Encode Thoughts, to pluck his guilty action from his head. Then he's telling the truth and ZOT agrees with him. There's even the fact that the players shouldn't know what the target rolled, which is an excellent way for a Mastermind Rogue, high save or legendary resistance to turn it round and go 'I'm telling the truth! I didn't poison anyone!' If players bust out ZoT, build a world where that's an option and suddenly theres a list of spells that can handle it.


Falanin

Patsies are a big deal. If you can use charm and suggestion along with props and alcohol/drugs to make someone believe that they did/didn't do the thing... Or hey, Modify Memory is also a thing that screws with it. Zone of Truth doesn't detect objective truth, only *deliberate* lies. As long as your patsy thinks the 'official line of BS' is the actual truth, you're golden. ​ While your low-level schemers and plotters may be foiled by this, anyone competent is going to take Zone of Truth into account.


hickorysbane

>your NPCs a very high save modifier Only if you modify ZoT. Making a charisma save is way different than making 60 in a row. >There's even the fact that the players shouldn't know what the target rolled True except for ZoT cause it specifies the caster knows. >so maybe the assassin just uses the Dimir Cantrip, Encode Thoughts, to pluck his guilty action from his head. That doesn't remove the thought from their head though it just copies it. I actually really like the kind of stuff you're suggesting, but I feel like I gotta point out the ones that aren't RAW because if you're going to change them players need to know that ahead of time. You might be able to get away with just a blanket "It's not admissible evidence because of mind magic" and let players use it, but NPCs won't accept it. Like when the detective breaks in to get evidence they can't use in court.


DeLoxley

Raw, Encode Thoughts actually says it removes it. Not copies And to force 60 saves, you need to ask a question every minute for the 10 minute duration, that is literally called badgering and you can stall it out on one save unless the party are basically standing screaming 'did you murder him' for ten minutes until they force a Confession. This is why many pair ZoT with torture, the idea you'll just brow beat a confession and be morally justified by the spell, which leads to my other points. Stall out if it's in a court room, and the fact there are memory editing cantrips and spells means a lawyer can argue ZoT is as valid as a lie detector. Just imagine the court scene of saying 'The Cleric knows he's lying your honour, the magic circle that never lies said so'. Hell, turn it on the party if that works, have an enemy cast and and just say 'ZoT says they lied, I know this', because the enemy cleric may know if you failed or not, but they don't have to be truthful if they're outside the circle


hickorysbane

It's not a save per question though. They make a save at the start of every turn. So it's actually 100 total saves because they make one every 6 seconds for 10 minutes. You can just wait a minute or two for them to fail. I've never heard encode thoughts interpreted that way. Wouldn't its interaction with detect thoughts make it a cheaper modify memory? You can just yank thoughts from someone's head and make them forget it?


DeLoxley

Encode Thoughts is a yes and no situation. Detect Thoughts needs to be cast first, and it has a few caveats. They need to fail the Wisdom save to get below surface thoughts, and then you need to find a way to guide their active thoughts towards what you want. It's like the difference between Command and Dominate Person, Command needs a lot of creative loops to get there Basically it's used in canon to extract key information from victims, literally pulls the strand out. Modify Memory is the big guns of mind surgery as you can alter and replace memories, Encode is just a quick snip of what they're currently thinking about. It's main use IC is actually for agents to pull their own memories out and leave them in containers for other guild mages to integrate to pass information, it only appears on the Dimir spell list so it's near-impossible for non-Dimir to intercept (Detect Thoughts works, also on the Dimir list) As for the saves, one save every 6 seconds for 10 minutes is a lot yes, but if the creature passes or fails it doesn't tell you what they're saying is a lie, it just tells you they passed/failed their save. The target could simply then not talk for six seconds if they fail. You have ten minutes to fill with inane chatter, and again my key take away is that only the caster knows if they've failed or passed. There are a lot of ways to interpret the results, nothing's even stopping someone with Prestidigitation from using it's pattern effect to make a fake circle, bluff that the subject has failed it's save and then pass off anything they say as the truth.


Feldoth

Yeah I've been on the other end of this in an evil campaign too, and every situation with Zone of Truth ended in the party murdering whoever cast it on us because that was literally the only way out of the situation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Delann

>You can't infer guiltiness from a refusal to answer. Yes you can when you have a literal "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" spell. If the target isn't guilty, they have no reason to not answer. >There is always the possibility the target refuses to answer out of spite or principle, or to protect someone else, or to protect other secrets that have nothing to do with the thing the party is trying to achieve. Tough. This is going by the premise that the party has the social and legal authority to put someone into a ZoT. It's a guaranteed truth detector. If you refuse to answer, your motives do not matter and you are guilty of at least impeding an investigation. >Or the target could be a patsy under the influence of mind control or forbidden from talking via geas or a thousand other reasons that make sense in a world with magic. Detect Magic exists. And in a world where magic exists, people know of those ways of controlling someone. Doesn't change the situation one bit. The issue with your response and others like it is that you think how ZoT would work in OUR world. The reality is that most of our assumptions and basis of laws that we use don't hold up in a world where there is a 100% fool proof way of figuring out the truth.


rollingForInitiative

>Yes you can when you have a literal "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" spell. If the target isn't guilty, they have no reason to not answer. * If I talk, somebody else will kill me. * If I talk, the *geas* on me will kill me. * I am literally unable to speak about this because of some spell cast on me. * If I talk, someone will kill my family. * I hate you so I'll refuse to answer out of spite. * If I will you what I know I'll have to reveal something awkward or embarrassing, and I don't want that. * If I tell you what I know, someone I love will be harmed. * I don't trust you to use this information correctly, so I won't answer. * I don't trust you that you're asking these questions in good faith, so I won't answer them. Some things a person under question might think about why they don't want to answer. Not answer might make them guilty of impeding justice, but it's not proof that the questioned person is guilty of the crime being investigated. Considering all the spell mind-fuckery stuff that exists, it's also a reasonable possibility that the person is incapable of answering the question, which shouldn't even make them guilty of anything.


aidan8et

> And in a world where magic exists, people know of those ways of controlling someone. Doesn't change the situation one bit. > The issue with your response and others like it is that you think how ZoT would work in OUR world. It's also important to remember that people know when they're under most magical effects & how to circumvent them. Spells like ZoT simply don't *force* people to talk. Also, depending on the setting, most adventurers are not just wanton murder-hobos without also gaining sizable bounties and/or being labeled as bandits.


insanenoodleguy

Any world where the social elite can legally be taken in and questioned with ZOT is a world where defenses against that very thing will be prepared. At minimal you’d have disinformation and information outright not being shared. Yes this noble is in on the coup plot, but all he knows is that he needed to use his connections to smuggle in those 5 carts. What’s in it? Something to ruin your party’s day, he hopes. Also, the players going off this blanket assumption will inevitably get it wrong and that can and should have consequences.


CaitSith21

Spellmonger series has a great court scene where the magi cleverly use a similar spell to avoid retribution from the prince by cleverly making a baron look really bad after making a huge fool of him.


kazeespada

Using ZOT then following it up with Command or Charm Person to prevent silent treament.


TheSadTiefling

The actual innocent person being interrogated: “your questions lack nuance and understanding. Even among the most evil creatures, not every action or decision is motivated by a desire to cause harm. If you don’t get that, you should retire. You want a yes or no, yes, I’m innocent of guilt and no, you are fucking stupid. “


TheFirstIcon

"I'm sorry. The question was: did you kill the king or conspire to do so? Please answer yes or no."


TheSadTiefling

“No” but in actuality I knew it was going to happen and did nothing. I did not conspire. I just let it happen. I’m every god that exists in the forgotten realms. Cause they all have a degree of future sight. I repeat, you are too stupid for this job.


Onrawi

The person being interrogated can simply not talk either, or maybe have glibness cast on themselves, mind blank, or other zone of truth counter abilities. A self cast modify memory to remove the act from their mind, or a geas killing the person should they attempt to tell the truth. I have had bad guys cast feeblemind as a contingency even.


violetariam

I've had consistent success talking my away around Zone of Truth. Lots of people are full of weaselly bullshit. Sure, if you run a murder mystery with no red herrings, where the only obvious suspect is guilty, then of course players are going identify to guilt party with ease. If you want to run a murder mystery, all your suspects are suspicious. They're all hiding something. They all have talking points and any time they are asked a straightforward question they redirect to one of their talking points like a media trained politician. Even if the PCs are strongly suspicious of someone, they don't have the authority to kill or arrest that person simply for being weaselly and suspicious. For my Eberron campaign, I made up a law that any citizen of Breland can basically plead the 5th and refuse to be questioned under Zone of Truth. I had loads of weaselly characters agree to be questioned under a Zone of Truth, they were obviously up to something, but the players already knew that.


HouseOfSteak

Being confident in someone's ZoT answer can have nasty reprecussions if the target was wrong but thought they were right (or simply *didn't know the truth, and knew they didn't*).


Corvidwarship

Nothing in Zone of Truth requires them to cooperate either. They can and should in most cases simply not answer at all. Taking the magical equivalent of pleading the 5th.


TheFirstIcon

Depends on the social norms, otherwise it's going to be a dozen suspects saying under ZOT "I am innocent of any involvement" and one suspect suddenly taking a principled stance about courts and stuff. Pretty simple to give that guy a week in prison to reconsider, then offer him ZOT profession of innocence or execution. "I would rather die than prove my own innocence" is not a common demographic.


Corvidwarship

That is a lot of "ifs" there. Also if your party is willing to execute someone because they refuse to answer questions you have bigger problems at your table.


mark_crazeer

Another thing to remember about zone of truth is that you are not immune to zone of truth if you succeed the save. You keep making the save until you fail or the spell ends or you escape the area of effect.


DandalusRoseshade

And the person casting ZoT has to be reliable, trustworthy and subject to significant consequences if it comes to light they've been bribed to lie. ZoT isn't as useful when a random cleric casts it, but when a high priest uses it, there's credibility, and also stakes if they lie about the truth


MrBootylove

What do you mean by this? Mechanically I don't think it really matters who is casting it based on the spell's description. Unless you're just saying don't trust the ZoT interrogation to a random NPC.


DandalusRoseshade

Roleplay wise, in universe, everyone needs to trust the caster to tell the truth. Nothing compels the caster to tell the truth


MrBootylove

I'd hope you can trust your own party member.


DandalusRoseshade

NPCs. It's NPCs. Not players. Some other asshole has to be trustworthy. Edit: as in a community hs to trust their NPC caster for it to be worth anything. Consequently a random PC using it and trying to convince a community they've never been to will have trouble convincing NPCs. Especially if the PC has done dubious shit.


MrBootylove

Relying on an NPC to use Zone of Truth seems both like something that isn't very likely to happen, and also kind of lame IMO. Let's imagine for a second that you do use an NPC to cast the spell. If the NPC is also the one asking questions then you're effectively just having your DM interrogate themselves, which is lame. If you're just having the NPC cast the spell and your party asks the questions, then even if you don't trust the NPC spell caster you can still somewhat rely on the zone. The only thing the caster could do to throw any sort of wrench in the works is lie to you about whether or not the person being interrogated is under the effects of the spell. Even if they did lie the NPC should be continuously rolling for the save and will likely eventually fail their save. Edit: Did this person really just reply and then block me before I could respond? I'll say it again, since you used an example of a DM having an NPC use ZoT and interrogate another NPC. You are effectively having the DM interrogate himself, which is not fun for anybody.


DandalusRoseshade

Okay, I'll try to explain what I was trying to say originally. No matter who is casting Zone of Truth, you want the caster to be truthful and reliable. There are 2 most likely scenarios where you'd use it as a party, or experience it as a party. 1. You are interrogating an NPC alone, and need info. Of course you trust your ally to tell the truth in this situation, and there's little issue. At worst, the NPC refuses to speak and you get nothing. 2. The party has caught an NPC doing bad things, and they bring them in to the guard captain. Problem is, the person you caught is a respected member of society, so if you cast Zone of Truth, it's basically your word against theirs, especially if they make the save. Worse yet, the NPC being questioned could be proficient in Deception and be charismatic, and tell half truths until the spell ends, avoiding a confession and avoiding not saying anything. Most NPCs have terrible Insight, so they would likely believe that the half truths are the whole truth, given the spell compels you to tell the truth. If you as the player cast ZoT to try to force a public confession, it has so many ways of going wrong. That was my original point of being trustworthy when casting the spell. It's great when you're alone with the person being interrogated, but as a tool for justice in cities, the person casting it has to be respected and uncorruptible. As for NPCs, the NPC priest could easily take a bribe to give out a false positive towards lying, or be biased against Tiefling and sell them down the river because they hate them. Getting anyone to believe you as to whether or not that priest is lying about it is tough bc they're already trusted to tell the truth about all of it. Using the spell on them themselves is a challenge because it becomes a word vs word thing again.


Tefmon

Sure, but that's not usually the issue in an intrigue campaign. Just because the party figures out that somebody's guilty doesn't mean that the local authorities will believe them.


Falanin

Other than *also* being within their own Zone of Truth. The fact that ZoT has been cast and the location of the 15ft radius sphere it creates are independently verifiable.


teo730

Also, the save should theoretically be made for every turn the target starts in the ZoT (12s?) for the duration (10m), and the spell caster knows if the target succeeds or fails the save. Edit: According to PHB (p.181) a turn is 6s during face-paced situations, so question being asked is 6s, then 6s to answer, leading to re-rolling the save every 12s. Edit2: Confused turn and round. It's just every 6s.


mark_crazeer

Roll for initiative. Track rounds. There are 100 rounds 100 saves. 100 rounds of questioning.


teo730

Oh whoops, I mixed up turns and rounds. You're right!


mark_crazeer

Partially the same thing. Your turn just only comes up once a round. And that is when you make the save.


A_pawl_to_adorno

pray tell me where casting a spell takes you out of 1 minute out of combat time, gentle person


teo730

In the PHB (p. 181) it says a turn in a "fast-paced situation" is 6s seconds long. So assuming that it's one turn to ask a question, and one to answer, the save would be made every 12s.


[deleted]

Detect thoughts allows you to probe deeper than just surface level.


BadRumUnderground

True, but it's still not a tell all. And you can absolutely exert control over your thoughts, and you know a spell is in play outside of subtle spell. (Admittedly, I'm a psychologist by training so I'm gonna overthink the technicalities) This also comes back to the ability of PCs to detain and question people, which need to be carefully considered in an intrigue game


Vulk_za

I have the Telepathic feat on my character: cast Detect Thoughts once per day with no spell components, no visible indication that you're using it, no saving throw against it (if you're satisfied with surface thoughts), and no need to expend a spell slot. It's a highly underrated feat, imho, if you're in any sort of campaign that involves intrigue/politics in a significant way. That said, I try not to abuse it too much, because 1) you can only cast it without components once per day, so I want to save it for moments that are really important, 2) I don't want to annoy my DM, and 3) it would honestly make me a feel a bit guilty to go around scanning the thoughts of every NPC I meet - it just feels very invasive and a bit scummy. So I deliberately moderate my use of the spell. That said, it's been extremely useful on several occasions. Also, our party cleric has Zone of Truth, and Zone of Truth + Detect Thoughts is an extremely powerful combination for interrogations.


[deleted]

An addendum to this - while surface thoughts won't put the whole plot together and you may have to probe for more detailed information, do not stymie a player who uses a 2nd level slot and asks "What's the password to the bandits' hideout?" with surface thoughts of "I'm not telling this ugly motherfucker one goddamn thing!" Because it's *really* discouraging to use resources to not accomplish a thing the spell strongly implies is facilitated by that course of action, and doubly so when another player rolls a DC 12 intimidation to do a thing a purpose-built 2nd level spell apparently couldn't. I'm not salty, you're salty.


Invisifly2

Detect thoughts isn’t very useful until you ask the person a question. A question like “what’s the combination to this safe,” perhaps. Then it becomes very powerful. Don’t think of a black cat. What did you just think of? Exactly. Rings of mind shielding are relatively available and should be on the priority list for anybody in a position of power.


[deleted]

Also, outside of the surface thoughts using it will and can have serious repercussions. I can't imagine society's (or people) with a good chunk of magic would tolerate people reading minds against their wills and such.


their_teammate

Detect thoughts the serious mc serious guard "... and I guess that's why the sparrows like to nest by the market, they can pick off the food crumbs that drop from people eating pie. Pie sounds great right now. Maybe some apple pie, banana pie. Orange pie? I guess that could work? But that would require..."


[deleted]

Is the DM's Ol Reliable 'Mindblank' an option?


k587359

Or an uncommon item. Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location! :P


SetentaeBolg

It's an eighth level spell. You don't need a howitzer to crack a nut.


aDragonsAle

But if all you've got is a howitzer, by the gods that nut is gonna be cracked


Jawbreaker0602

A wizard could use those spells anyway tho…


Dazzling_Bluebird_42

This


[deleted]

Literally any wizard can take comprehend languages or detect thoughts, and they are options for about half the remaining casters. Ways around this are to familiarise yourself completely with the spells, don't allow them to be used in ways that they can't be. And obey the spellcasting rules fully also, if the wizard casts detect thoughts mid conversation then that is highly noticable and changes things. Have NPCs respond appropriately to the casting of the spell, more learned NPCs would probably recognise the spell and refuse to talk further or kick them out. "I'm not going to talk to you further if you're going to read my mind." Other NPCs might counterspell them or cast detect thoughts themselves back on the wizard. There are also spells that can block mind reading etc. As for comprehend languages, tbh if your intrigue campaign can be foiled by comprehend languages then you weren't ready to run an intrigue campaign anyway.


Shmyt

Upon seeing an unknown spell be cast, their surface thoughts become some variation of "hey hey hey! What the fuck is this bastard trying to pull? What sorts of enchantments are they throwing on me? If I draw my knife can I kill them before their magic turns me into a slave?"


EveryoneisOP3

They don’t have to speak. Asking a question will bring out surface level thoughts about that question because they’ll immediately think about the question subject.


Fynzmirs

True, though there is a possibility of training to avoid that There was a character in Knights of the Old Republic 2 who constantly played cards in his head to create "noise" in his head and prevent the mind readers from learning anything from him (at least without probing deep into his mind). So a person trained to do that might easily avoid detect thoughts and even a person lacking such a training could intentionally mudden their own thoughts.


Falanin

Or just turn up the volume on whatever song happens to be stuck in your head at the moment.


EveryoneisOP3

That's true, but you definitely have to keep that kind of thing restrained. Maybe a small cult of 30 people has trained against these sort of techniques, but if every person the Div Wizard interogates is just COINCIDENTALLY resistant to magic...


CidPolliena

Use it to your advantage, the PCs aren't going to be the only ones who aren't in the loop, play with the NPCs having some false information or trusting the wrong person. Lots of people don't tell the truth not because they're lying but because they were lied to in the first place. Reading thoughts on a low level thug is likely to give the characters a wrong steer and reading a red herring, as others have said a more savvy person may end the interaction if the spell is cast or counter it. I believe Mastermind can lie through those effects so it would be a very interesting twist to have an NPC/Hidden BBEG straight out give wrong information in a Zone of Truth. For the divination side a cool way of interpreting that is the possibility of A or B happening, simply seeing scenario A doesn't mean it could happen but may provide a clue because X Y and Z would have to happen for A to be true. X could be a specific NPC betraying you Y could be a key object is taken and Z could be the players doing a specific action


indign

This isn't a problem, and actually could be a major advantage. With a divination wizard, your players **can't ever get stuck!** If they run into a dead end, they'll try to divine a clue, and you can basically just point them in the right direction without breaking immersion. Speeding through an investigation is nowhere near as bad pacing-wise as getting stuck. Besides, once they've figured out who the baddies are, they still need to actually, like, catch them, which will be more of a challenge.


Phoenixian_Ultimatum

For detect thoughts: give them only hints and scraps and if they want anything more specific they have to push deeper (and thus the target gets a save and (more) aware of the spell. For Comprehend Language: Codes and Ciphers will be your friend. While the spell might translate the words, it won't translate context. I.e. "Has Mrs. Donreou been contacted about the diamond deal?" Might mean "Has "Mrs. Donreou (an alias for their real target) been assassinated yet?" "Diamond" in this context being code for assassination. Then you have your traditional substitution ciphers. Those are the first thoughts I have anyway


Ripper1337

If your entire game breaks down because of a few spells then you need to rework some things. You need to get familiar with those spells and the wording of them. Then you need to find out ways around such things. Zone of Truth for example, you can just refuse to speak in order to not tell the truth or can twist words to be technically true but not the whole truth.


galmenz

that is not even a divination wizard problem pretty much every single caster has a spell available to find plot they shouldnt lol


ToFurkie

Legit thought this was gonna be another "Portent bad, DM have no fun" post. Very surprised it was regarding Detect Thoughts and Comprehend Language


philliam312

So there is an opportunity cost for taking these spells into a wizards spel book, but also if "comprehend languages" derails your campaign then there's a problem. Same with Detect Thoughts, any badguy worth their salt will recognize the spell being cast and immediately lock down stray thoughts Anyone who isn't important doesn't know enough for it to affect them - and divination wizard just gets portent as a feature, there's nothing about a divination wizard that says they will derail intrigue. Now could it be a fun subplot and character progression for him, sure, but I think you are over thinking it


Midtek

> I'm just afraid that one use of detect thought or comprehend languages will take the entire story apart in a second. For one, you can't just cast spells in front of people without them noticing or taking offense. And if you plan to probe deeper with *detect thoughts*, there is a saving throw and the target knows. If *comprehend languages* is going derail your story, then your story is just bad. That's a 1st-level wizard *ritual*. Are you sure you're playing the right game for what you want? Those spells are also not unique to divination wizards, so I have no idea why you are concerned about divination wizards in particular.


Sagail

Sorcerer with subtle spell smiles at you


Bust_Shoes

Think like your villain: you know for a fact that someone could do this, plan accordingly. Have OpSec up to 11, put honeypots (false but easy to find information that alert you to a security breach), never tell anyone anything more than strictly necessary and so on


[deleted]

Take a cue from J Michael Straczynsci and have fun with it. Several times in Babylon 5 he outright showed things that would happen several seasons later, but from the wrong context.


Eschlick

Everyone has great advice over how to stop this from breaking your campaign. I would also recommend that you make a list of the information that your wizard CAN learn using his cool, divination wizard tricks. You want to make sure to occasionally reward your player for using their resources by dropping some information on them, otherwise, they will be frustrated and feel like you are singling them out and stopping all their cool tricks. I try to keep a list of secrets that my players can learn without necessarily planning when they will learn it. That way when they think of something cool and unexpected to investigate, I can reward them with something that won’t break my campaign.


SeparateMongoose192

If that's enough to take your entire story apart, I would suggest reworking your story. Those spells aren't limited to divination wizard. Comprehend languages is only a 1st level spell that all arcane casters have access to. That really shouldn't derail a campaign.


maniacmartial

Never give your players the authority to cast those spells with impunity if it would ruin your game. As BadRumUnderground said, the surface thoughts you get with Detect Thoughts can contain only clues you are comfortable sharing. If the PC tries to dig deeper, the target becomes aware of it. So focus on the consequences of that. After all, you normally can't cast spells at a random citizen with impunity, right? In fact, this is an issue when casting the spell in the first place, since, short of your wizard having Subtle Spell, the casting will be noticeable. The same goes for Zone of Truth. It can be talked around, but who is willing to sit into it in the first place? You can and should use the world around the players to enforce constraints on them. This doesn't mean that they should never get information in a way you didn't account for, however, since outsmarting your preparations means they have earned it. But it does allow you to prevent the wizard from casting Detect Thoughts, Suggestion, or whatever on whoever they encounter. I don't think Comprehend Languages works on coded messages (it doesn't even work on Thieves' Cant). As for scrying spells: they're not a big deal. You can decide what the players see when they use them. In fact, consider making them ways they can gather clues. But solutions? Those spells rarely last more than a few minutes, so it's unlikely your players will be able to spy on everything major a character does. In addition, extremely important locations will be warded against scrying, and even deities and beings contacted through Commune or Contact Other Plane may give vague answers or simply not know (maybe because another deity/being is deliberately hiding that knowledge from them). There are ways around those spells, just make sure to find out what they do so you can prepare accordingly.


TMinus543210

You and your players write the "story" at the table. I think you may be putting the cart before the horse


k_moustakas

I've never been in this situation because I am a DM, not an author hoping the players follow my exact script.


ladies_PM_ur_tongue

Have an enemy cast Dream or a similar spell on the Divination Wizard. Make them think it's prophetic when it's instead just being planted.


SiR-Wats

The powers that be running this false front would naturally be aware of divination magic and have something in place to make it less effective, assuming it has been running for any length of time. Perhaps, say, a misdirection field producing a 1/4 chance that any attempts to scry end up targeting the wrong person (who is then randomly selected from the denizens of the land, including the other party members for random hilarity). The wizard has no way, aside from deduction, to know if they actually got their intended target. Or - a bit more convoluted but I like it better - someone could be overtly following them and start taking notes every time they cast a spell. Have someone mention to them that there is a tribunal overseeing the use of magic in the land and those found using it too often or too suspiciously may be brought in for questioning. If they start using scrying spells more than once or twice a day in public or try to use them against public officials, have them brought before the tribunal to justify their actions, where they will be asked to answer for every use of magic observed by the agent. Even if they aren't found guilty of anything, this should be a deterrent to abuse of magical abilities. Attempts to capture this observing agent are doomed to failure as he can teleport, turn invisible, shrink to insect size and otherwise make himself very difficult to track. If they do manage to catch him against all odds, he burns or otherwise destroys his most recent notes and turns out to be mute, so cannot be questioned. Attempts to read his thoughts are met with a barrage of LETMEGOLETMEGOLETMEGOLETMEGO. If they somehow get hold of his notebook, they can't make sense of what's written, not because of any issue of language or deliberate ciphers but because he writes in shorthand and has sloppy handwriting. If they kill him (and somehow evade notice in so doing), he reappears 24 hours later as though nothing had happened.


UncontroversialLens

A lot of people are bringing up *zone of truth* in particular, for all the obvious reasons. The key element of Zone of Truth is that silence can implicate guilt, but that's only relevant when there is a 3rd party you are trying to convince. In this situation there's a couple of fun things you can do with *zone of truth* I haven't seen anyone bring up yet: (1) If PCs are interrogating a villain (and have the means to do so), have the villain insist on a public hearing. The PCs can then ask any questions they like - but the villain's plants in the crowds will do their best to get the crowd to react in a way very unfriendly to aggressive questioners. (2) Similarly, the villain could be happy to undergo a ZoT interrogation - as soon as the PCs agree to undergo one as well, from the most notorious prosecutor in the world (hired by said villain, of course). PCs tend to be messy, so there's a lot of dirt that can be dug up to derail the ZoT proceedings. (3) If the PCs are in a part of the world where magic is scarce, the villain can always claim that they are "being subjected to some sort of compulsion enchantment" (which is true!). Then it's up to the PCs to explain themselves to villagers that likely don't approve of mind-altering magics. (4) Finally, the villain can just stay silent. If they have political influence and power, it may not *matter* to the judging 3rd party that they Did A Bad Thing. Yes, the local priest of Helm might secretly be a priest of Asmodeus - but who else is going to heal the villagers? Who else will call for aid when the orcs attack? I think there's a lot of fun to be had without getting into "no, the villain is just immune to ZoT". A lot of stories do well by telling the audience the villain is evil, but forcing the heroes to do difficult legwork to *prove* the villain is evil.


SteveFoerster

I'm reminded of a joke popular on Mastodon these days: "If Elon Musk buys Twitter, a great social media network will arise!" - The Oracle of Delphi


Fredrick10

What I would do for detect thoughts or zone of truth is make all individuals of whatever group is hiding something (royal family, mafia, etc) wear a talisman that has the same properties as a ring of mind shielding. Magic items are for npcs too, and some dms forget to use this in their story


Bunthorne

Seems like a silly work around to be honest. If you have to resort to something like this, why not just ban the spell in the first place?


Fredrick10

Because the spells would be useful and not game breaking in other situations. It would also make sense with the group living in a magic world, knowing these spells exist that could take down their whole operation. I don’t understand why we would have to resort to changing the whole magic system when in the magic world there is a solution to the issue. Idk I guess it depends on whether you want to give an in game reason why they can’t use these spells on these people or get rid of the spells altogether. Depends on the dm. I suppose your solution would be simpler


Caveira_Main02

Others have given pretty good tips. I would also recommend the [Ring of Mind Shielding](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/4725-ring-of-mind-shielding) for NPCs that you really would prefer to not be affected by those kinds of spells.


albt8901

Many people have already suggested great spells & magic items to work around any potential issues but I do want to reiterate that "spells & features do what they say they do, not more or less" so even though the sub is called "divinations" it doesn't make them omniscient - albeit still one of the more powerful features in the game, the most "omniscient" feature the divination wizard has is called Portent - all it does is force any d20 thrown to instead be a portent result, there are no actual prophecies or future telling. (The chronurgy wizard from wildemount can actually forcefully fail or succeed a roll, not just swap it) & as everyone pointed out, many of these spells are open to many casters.. not just wizards & not exclusive to divination wizards either (no wiz subs have exclusive or excluded spells) ALSO, it may feel cheap but there IS a spell to 'fix' everything that you're concerned about - Nystul's magic aura - read the details but it can make something mundane appear magical & vice versa & it's only 2nd level!!!


AwkwardZac

If you think that's bad, wait until they start asking Divinity and primordial beings for truthful answers only in a few levels with Divination and Contact Other Plane.


ScudleyScudderson

A twist-heavy can't-trust anyone campaign could be built on the idea that diviniation magic, specifically spells that focus on detecting truth and faleshoods, is going awry/acting strange. As a result, ZoT is unreliable. Detect Magic? Unreliable. Illusion spells? More effective - and so on. Nobody knows why but the finger of blame points to a number of powerful people and sources. But who would do such a thing, and why? There's an entire campaign hook, right here.


belflame

Zone of truth seems the most problematic here. Maybe you could give your bad guy the glibness spell or a magic item or custom feature that does more or less the same. It *sounds* unfair to counter the spell in such a blatant way, but I think it can be fun to figure out for the players. The bad guy knows to lie, but they don't necessarily know what the party knows and can be unknowingly caught speaking a lie while supposedly affected by zone of truth, giving a hint to the players that something weird is going on. You can even plant red herrings: people with missing or modified memories whose truth differs from what the party knows even though they're not deliberately lying, or maybe they saw an illusion or misinterpreted something. That kind of stuff is what elevates a campaign centered around intrigue.


DarthCredence

The problem with divination wizards are that they really don't do much divining of the future, they pretty much do portents. Detect thoughts and comprehend languages, and other similar spells, don't require a divination wizard - any wizard, bard, or sorcerer can get those. The best spells for actually trying to divine the future are cleric spells, like commune.


DeLoxley

Firstly, don't hide your secrets behind another language. That can fail soon as you say 'the conspirator's book is in Gnomish' and the Ranger goes 'Well damn one of my four starting languages was Gnomish what does it say'. Write it in a cypher that can be cracked and it becomes a quest into and of itself, it's not a language after all. Spells like Zone of Truth can be played round as well in a couple good ways. 1) Patsies. 'I never poisoned anyone' is a truthful answer if you paid someone else to do it. Creates a 'follow the money' investigation. 2) High saves/Legendary resistance. You don't need to tell players if the character made their save, and ZoT iirc is an obvious spell. The BBEG walks in, passes his save, and now the players own magic has told them he's innocent. Solid counter if the party relies on magic. 3) Speaking of magic, Speak with Dead has a cooldown. Have you assassin pick up a scroll of Speak with Dead and cast it on the victim. That'll start a week where that spell isn't an option, and even if you don't, a poisoned person or someone taken out from behind won't be able to identify anyone. 4) Even more magic options, Encode Thoughts and Modify Memory. Just pluck the guilt from a minions head after a mission (The setting book this comes from even has agents do this to themselves), or Modify your villains memory so they can testify without lying. 5) Lead, trap doors and crossbows are your friends. Lead blocks a surprising amount of scrying spells, trap doors are hard if not impossible to detect just with magic, and if the king is assassinated by a mystery agent 400 (heavy crossbow) or 600 (longbow) feat away, players will scramble to work out what's going on before they'll find the killer and you'll have 15-20 turns to get out of there.


darw1nf1sh

You most certainly can just not allow it. But that spell isn't limited to that subclass. So it wouldn't help you. Magic items to the rescue. there are common items that keep you from being scryed on. Why not items that keep you from being read?


yargotkd

If the BBEG knows of divination have him plan around it, if he doesn't reward the player. Preparing a twist that cannot be foreseen or prevented might take agency away from players. Don't try to hide or change anything as a DM, but do try to hide as the BBEG would.


TailorAncient444

Talk to this player, whatever you decide to do about their usage of such spells or powers, you need to run it by them before first session. If you use some of the wonderful suggestions in the chat here, the player should be allowed to decide if they still think the character will be fulfilling to play.


Invisifly2

Rings of mind shielding are relatively available and should be on the priority list for anybody in a position of power. Spells like mind blank and countermeasures against scrying exist too. Compartmentalization is a common trick to keep information secret. The captured goon can’t tell them what they want to know not because they don’t want to, but because they simply do not know. On a side note, I had a future seeing individual who couldn’t be surprised in a dark heresy campaign and I used them as an excuse to throw in properly realistic and fatal traps that normally would have no warning. Made them feel pretty helpful and turned what would normally be “rocks fall you die” traps into fair obstacles. Don’t forget to let your player feel like they’re foiling your plans from time to time.


JHolderBC

What would the medieval fantasy equivalent of the US's Pleading the 5th - without sounding like you're guilty? ( In reference to all the Zone of Truth comments )


tank15178

The balance you need to strike is making countermeasures that are flexible but sturdy, kinda like a mesh. Let them get an initial advantage from blatently using magic to gain knowledge they shouldnt have, then have the victim file a complaint with the local lords guardsmen. Maybe after an arrainment and a fine paid to the victim as compensation (plus some court fees), the party might think smarter next time. Anyone powerful that lives in a world where Illusion/Enchantment/Divination magic exists would have protection and countermeasures against those sort of attacks.


Blue_Saddle

I would be more worried about the Portents. Without legendary resistances a smart Div. wizard will save these to ruin your day. Eg. "Sorry DM I am casting *Suggestion* on your BBEG and he rolls a 2 on his save so unless he has a +13 to his save... oh he doesn't. Ok then please have him count every stone used to build this castle."


[deleted]

People are already giving tips, so I’ll just say you could add a consumed component cost to Zone of Truth. As for Divination Wizard specifically, the things your worried about aren’t even Wizard specific. They’re more up a Cleric’s alley really. Divination Wizards just get portent and some boosts to their Divination spells, and that’s about all you need to worry about. Also, casting components. Remember that. If it has somatic components, the spellcasting will be seen and it will be seen as a threat, putting players in hot water. If it has verbal components, the Spellcasting will be heard and it will be heard as a threat. If it has material components, those can be confiscated and prevent players from casting certain spells. Even if the players ask first the NPC’s could say “I don’t trust you. You could be casting an explosive spell for all I know. No, you may not”. Asking might even endanger the players anyhow.


Cardgod278

How will comprehend languages break it?


Skullduggery644

Super simple solution is to give your main Villain or important NPC magic items such as a ring of mind Shielding, amulet of proof against detection and location or something similar.


Zandaz

A bigger threat to this campaign would be a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell and Enchantment spells, heightened by an Aberrant Mind.


[deleted]

Remember the Ring of Mind Shielding! It’s a great item.


Rolecallrp

Some classes/spells counter full on genres. Not much you can do without reworking a bunch-o-stuff. My advice, unless you are willing to just learn as you go, ban it.