|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Thank you all !!
Oliver McShade wrote:
So a 9th level wish spell, was not powerful enough to close a portal, but was powerful enough to send a someone into the distant future.... (( while a typical cleshay of the spell, not a very wise use by GM, unless it is to kill off a character permanently )).
Oliver, you should read the wish spell description, and with some examples there, maybe you will understand my decision.
With regards to the OP, you decided to remove a character from the game because you didn't want the Wish spell to work. That's pretty bad GM'ing and if I were the player, I'd be pissed at you.
The player was totally aware that if he wished something too powerful, the consequences could be dire. I don't see how this is bad GM'ing any more than killing a character behaving foolishly by attacking an opponent too powerful for him. Unless you want that characters can do anything without any consequences whatsoever.Also, I didn't remove his character, I just wanted him to go through some trouble before he could eventually return. If I just wanted to remove his character, I would not have asked a question on how to make him come back by opening this topic in the first place.
Anyway, thanks to all others for contributing with good ideas and hints.
As for the character, he has found a way to come back now, with an idea similar to the one Kadance proposed. Thanks again.
Thank you all for your replies.
Since the undo misfortune choice from a wish spell change reality for an event in the last round, I don't think a "normal" wish is enough to cancel the time travel.
Kadance, I like your second idea. If my player think of it, I might allow it to function, just for him to go back in time.
Here's the situation, I'm asking here since the the Shackled City board is mostly dead, and it's a rule question anyway.
I'm running this adventure path, and in a high level adventure, the adventurers must stop cultists to open a portal to a fiendish realm. They found a way to cast a wish spell and since they were too late and the portal was opened, they decided to wish for the portal to be closed definitively.
I thought that it's really above the guidelines of the spell, so I send the wisher into the future (and just him), when the portal has been finally closed by some epic adventurers. The player understood quickly he was sent in time, and want to try to come back. I told him it is going to be very difficult. He plans on tracking an NPC to have access to a wish spell, which is possible in the campaign.
But again, such a wish would be above the limits described in the spell. So it could be again dangerous.
What do you think ? Should it be possible ? Does a wish should be enough of more ? Another thing to do ? Another way for him to go back in time ? Ideas ?
Ok, they decided to continue to explore a little and encounter Shebeleth who told them they were too late. They fought him but took a serious beating because they were low on spells. So they fled to rest. Now it's too late and the portal opened. They decided to use the wish to make it close. I think it's really above the guidelines of the spell, so I send the wisher into the future (and just him), when the portal has been finally closed by some epic adventurers. The player understood quickly he was sent in time, and want to try to come back. I told him it is going to be very difficult. He plans on tracking Celeste, hoping that she can do something, and since he saved her, he hopes she will try.
Oh and by the way, since the wish is available only to a character with the smoking eye template, he was the only one of course to have it. So to release Adimarchus in Asylum to fight him for good, it's going to be problematic.
My players found the secret room with the altar to Adimarchus, and so the character with the smoking eye template understood he can use a wish in this room.
Cancelling the ritual: I think it can't work, it's far beyond the power of a wish to chance to much things affecting different people.
Wishing to be in the ritual room (because they know they're short on time): I think it could work, travel anywhere is part of a wish and wish can bypass some spells like mind blank, so it could bypass the capacity of the Tree of Shackled Souls to block divination.
What do you think ? For those who have played this adventure, what your characters have done with this wish ?
The text is very confusing about the number of flamewarders in some places. The descriptive text mentions 4 while the stat block says 2 or vice versa. And it's becoming more complicated since some flamewarders can move from room to room.
Also it is said that Shebeleth can use a scroll of gate to summon a glabrezu, but I can't find it anywhere. Could be just a typo though.
3.5. But I've read it in all editions, even Pathfinder, and it's still useful to find a locale not an item (I noticed they dropped the part which finds tripwires and password of glyphs but that's not the point).
This phrase "Find the path works with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a locale." which exists in 3.5/PRPG for me is enough to ruin all attempt to use the spell to find the Tree of Shackled Souls. Or am I missing something ?
I was wondering about the thin walls destined to block the most direct route. As I have always played this spell since 1st edition, you can't use it to go where the Tree of Shackled Souls is (it's an object not a locale). So I'm wondering how it could even be useful, to the point of these thin walls to "counter" it.
Ok, Savage Tide is finished ! I've run this battle this afternoon, and the PCs have been succesful even if they were almost short of healing spells, one or two rounds more, and they would have die.
Anyway, I'm very happy to have finally completed this great campaign ! Kudos again to the authors !!
I see two potential big problems with this BBEG.
Also this makes his blasphemy spell-like ability mortal to the point of immediate TPK. I'm playing in 3.5, so baring spell resistance (32 with a spell resistance's spell at caster level 20, so 1 on 20 chance for him to not penetrate it, and automatic against 19th lvl characters for which the adventure is written for), 20th characters or less will be dead, no save in a 40-foot radius. 21-25th lvl characters will be "just" paralyzed for a few minutes, so certainly dead too.
Also his implosive strike is huge. The DC is wrong. It should be, as a supernatural ability, 10+half 30 HD+Con mod (according to what is written in his stat block)=10+15+13=38 ! Which is almost an automatic kill, baring a really good roll on save.
For those who have run this fight, how did it go ? Did you change anything ?
Thank you Mykull for your answer.
As for the epic DR, if I remove it, only the fighter will be able to ignore the remaining cold iron and good part. The only other characters who will eventually attack him in melee can't. One is a druid who obviously fights under wild shape, so no cold iron. The second is a sacred fist (monk/priest prestige class) who can't use weapons, again no cold iron weapons. I'm afraid that leaving Demogorgon wih a DR20 against the only character who can really hits him would be too difficult, especially with fast healing 20 and some heal spells under the belt.
I agree with you for natural armor. Lowering by 2 by negative level may be too important, leaving him with only 12 points of natural armor.
If I understand correctly, the PCs need to destroy/stop the Tree in one foray, since it is said that they shouldn't stop to sleep/recover. Even as written with some fairly weak adversaries, that is a lot of taxing encounters. I'm not sure my group can handle the big fights after so many battles.
I have a few questions about the weakened prince.
Even with 10 negative levels, he doesn't lose his epic damage reduction ? That seems very tough with DR 20, far more than losing his mage armor ability.
It is said in text that he loses 2 points of natural armor for every negative level, but according to the table, he loses only 3 points for every two negative levels. Which one is correct ?
Also, I think losing 2 points of DCs for special ability per negative level is a little harsh. With 10 negative levels (so -20 to the DCs), most characters will fail only on a natural 1. If someone has run the encounter, what are you thoughts about this ?
James Jacobs wrote:
As it turns out, that information DID get into Lords of Madness. It's right there on page 28. The fact that I couldn't just use those names for the elder evils is what annoyed me, but being able to put that section in anyway was a good consolation prize.
Oh my bad ! Sorry. I missed that. Anyway, I think that adding the Cthulhu mythos in D&D or Pathfinder is a great idea. And since I love Lovecraft's writings, all the better for me. ^^
Hello again James
James Jacobs wrote:
The closest thing aboleths have to deities are the Great Old Ones and Outer Gods. Which is, more or less, the same as how aboleths worked in "Lords of Madness," save that Paizo's not afraid of using names like "Yog Sothoth" or "Nyarlathotep" or "Azathoth" as part of the game setting.
And I would like to know if you had designed the Elder Evils in Lords of Madness to be equivalent to some Lovecraftian's entities, and so could you give the "equivalencies" (which one is which) ?
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks a lot for this answer. It's kinda sad since this seemed very promising, and I really enjoyed what Paizo have done for the Greyhawk setting in the Dragon/Dungeon era. I put it on the same level that Carl Sargent has done back in 2nd Edition. And I wanted also to congragulate you, Erik and Jason for the amazing Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.Thanks a lot again.
I have a question not related to Golarion if you don't mind.
I concluded that Eclavdra had dealings with Graz'rt well before the priestesses war in Ereilhei-Cinlu or the events of Against the Giants, am I right ?
Sorry for such a long question not related to Golarion, but I really enjoyed what you have done for the Greyhawk setting, so I was wondering.
I'm wondering. Did you use 3.5 or PRPG ? Because with his blasphemy spell-like abilities at caster level 30, it's a automatic kill for 20th level characters, baring silence effects or SR.Also his Implosive Strike should be a DC 38 accroding to the rules, so it's pretty high, and since he can use it 3 three times after he strikes. Since I'm currently DMing it, I'm wondering how my PCs will survice this.
As for the foreshadowing, I'm not sure it is entirely the problem. The 3 last adventures are fairly standard dungeon crawls, without much originality. Which is not good after all the preceding adventures.
That's the point. Why is there an attack roll and a save, except to nerf the spell ? Why finger of death has only a save while slay living or disintegrate have an attack roll and a save ? I can't see the logic.Nerfing ray of enfeeblement by reducing the duration and adding a save make this spell a joke IMO. Compare it with touch of idiocy: no save, long duration, and caster can lose his highest level spells and more. It just doesn't scale with levels.
My point is to have a more unified magic system. You save against spells, you make an attack roll with a weapon. You get rid of a stat, it gets simpler, and you also lose a paragraph in the rules.
Of course not, that just doesn't make sense and it's ridiculous. The normal AC, and the touch AC are not the same except for a very few creatures. You have a save for half damage on fireball, why can't it be the same with scorching ray ? Of course you'll need to rewrite some spells or balance them differently.
That's just my thoughts to make the game evolve. And some things can't please everyone, we already know that.
But I'm waiting to hear Mr James Jacobs here, it's the ask James Jacobs thread. ^^
Do you think that touch spells (melee or ranged) could be changed to an appropriate saving throw instead of an attack roll ? That would remove the touch AC system, and some characters/monsters would have a better chance to avoid or diminish the effect of these spells (negates the effect or half, or partial). On a lot of creatures it can come quiclky to the point that the caster must roll a natural 1 for the creature to escape the spell.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.