Scrying + Limited Wish (-7 next save) + Wish (kidnap)
If the kidnapping is done for plot reasons then 'anything' that goes along is just fine, as long as it doesn't screw with the party.
"A dark book that contains a forbidden ritual that involves doing damnable stuff and it's too dangerous to let it exists blah blah blah, even keeping it turns you into an evil guy etc etc etc..."
Rulewise, you did it well.
In fairness, you should let your players know the whole ruling involved in using Dirty Tricks
Dirty Trick wrote:
Bolded for emphasis.
Greetings! Might be a late response but here goes anyway.
You got it all correct, just remember a few things.
RAW. The Will DC 15 for avoiding effects applies for both injuries and full moon nights.
Once the PC becomes aware, the transformation is a willing action BUT, the Werewolf entry here says:
When a PC becomes a lycanthrope, you as the GM have a choice to make. In most cases, you should take control of the PC’s actions whenever he is in hybrid or animal form—lycanthropy shouldn’t be a method to increase a PC’s power, after all, and what an afflicted lycanthrope does while in animal or hybrid form is often at odds with what the character would actually want.
Also remember that an aware PC also remembers what did last time she transformed, so Alignment must be in consideration.
Wolfsbane is a poison so the Fort 15 save is for both cure the curse and survive the ingestion.
I am more concerned about how Wulfgar the barbarian survived going NUDE and barehanded underwater in a frozen lake and punched to death a white dragon.
Then again, novels and game rules never combined very well.
Elminster the Mary Sue ended up fist fighting against a GOD because both ran out of spells.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Looking forward to see your ultimate form.
That kind of dependence has always been present since D&Ds origins. In 3.5/PF1 if a GM steals/sunder/dispel your main weapon you are basically screwed, not to mention the nightmarish times in AdD&D. If I remember correctly, in PF2 what makes magic weapons truly powerful are the runes/gems attached to them, and the quality of the weapon/armor in question affects the maximum level of power you can attach.
I am really confident in the ability of the Paizo dev. team to come up for some cool character options involving INT to attack/damage/AC/Saves
As far as I can remember, in PF1 the only 'rogue' who uses INT to AC is the rogue-duelist. "One can fight brutish, others can fight quick and nimble, but I prefer to fight clever".
Both systems have the retraining option, which is nice.
I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think that thanks to the actual system of multiclassing/archetypes/prestige class in PF2 this kind of combination is doable without the feeling of being underwhelmed in comparison to the overall power level of the game.
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
Yes but not as much as 5~10 years ago.
2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome?
Troublesome is not the word I'd use, nowadays it feels unpolished. I was in the train among other folks thinking the 1st ed was in need of an overhaul.
3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D?
5th Edition, but bear in mind that I've only played a few runs using those rules. And never played 4th Ed.
4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?
All of those. Practically asking for the impossible. I want every aspect of the game, from rules to flavor text, to have its own little place.
5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Overall, it's a good decision. But as I learned while testing 5th Ed, with accesibility comes easiness that may lead to boredom to more 'experienced' players.
6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system than what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
If by alternative you mean variant rules, then yes.
8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
a) AC divided into Blunt AC - Slashing AC - Piercing AC - Touch AC
b) More consequences for being wounded in combat. Both aesthetically and mechanically.
c) Saving throws more organical, using the 6 attributes.
d) Combat rules for fighting gigantic enemies, Shadow of the Colossus style.
e) 'Cheating' actions for big bosses like the legendary actions in 5th Ed.
f) I am pretty sure I can come up with more but my lazy mind stopped working.
Interesting. You know my good undead sir, that simple post sparked a home rule idea about 'difficulty settings' for my homebrew campaigns. Some kind of Heroic - Standard - Gritty.
N N 959 wrote:
Bullseye, good post here.
In the LotR movies there're two subtle yet cool scenes in... the second movie I guess, where the hobbits were taken to Isengard. One of them is how Aragorn is able to know the direction, numbers and other stuff about the enemy just listening the earth, and how the tracking party was faster than the fleeing one. The second is probably unrelated, but I love the scene where Legolas says "A red sun rises. Blood has been spilled this night".
David knott 242 wrote:
I think Unicore refers to more complicated scenarios, like what happens to a creature's body when it dies. I remember a thread in the rules forum a couple months ago, nobody agreed if a dead body was still a creature, an object, or a creature with the dead condition.
In the game Icewind Dale there is a strong conflict between Law vs Chaos presented. The chaotic barbarian tribes are very angry with the constant invasion of the 'civilized' people.
In Planescape setting, AL is the key factor. Armies of fiends and demons at war because one side is Chaos and the other is Law. Entire cities in the planes can switch one plane to another if the people living in it have a strong belief towards that new AL.
What I am trying to say with my amazing communication skills is that there can be a value if the setting the PCs play at is adequate for it.
For what is worth it. In 1st and 2nd edition those spells were also used to make 'inmortal guardians' whose duty and devotion was bound beyond the grave. The elven Baelnorn lich is a good example. And if I recall correctly there was even the class kit White Necromancer.
In 3rd edition the negative energy that sustains any undead form is considered 'evil' because one way or another it lead to unavoidable damnation even for the most pious ones, the book Libris Mortis tries to explain the meaning behind. This new concept for negative is evil and positive is good brought new oddities to the game, and so the Book of Exalted Deeds tried to implement the 'undead life made from positive energy', the Inmortal template.
I don't have any knowledge how they deal in 4th or 5th Ed to compare.
My intention of this post is not to argue, just sharing some history.
On unaware adventurers?
Alright alright I know where the door is...
I don't think the case to be true since what it seems to me it's that they are trying to make almost every magic item relevant/useful. And honestly, some folks have the ability to go and look their chosen 'image avatar' for their PC and ignore the fact that he is now overloaded with magical trinkets and stuff, I am not one of them. That's why I willingly paid overpriced items with combined effects.
Weather Report wrote:
Ah yes, good old times. When literally nothing could be done when the fiendish neighbours started to succesfully gate to the infinity and beyond more companions to the battle.
My only issue with goblins is the +2 CHA, I am really looking forward to see what can they bring to the table, mechanical or lore wise.
"In PFS every PC can only be created under explicit consent of the GM"
If you include something like Schools’ or ‘speres’ That allow some further sub sorting of these spell lists for classes it could work. Otherwise it seems like it is liable to impose a certain ‘sameness’ at the cost of flavor.
You mean the Spheres of Influence used in AD&D? Romantic. I can see that instead of a "here, cast anything you want, and a plus from my domains".
Pretty unrelated, but I miss Shadow Magic (Tome of Magic). I'll chant hooray if I ever see again the chance to create another dark magician in full flavour.
The 90% of the entire blog post is a 'hell yeah', the other 7% is a 'let us be cautious', and the final 5% it's me screwing the math up like always.
The creature is banished and can't return to your home plane by any means for 1 week.
I know this. It's a critical fail when you argue with your GM.
Crossblooded, Sorcerer. "My blood is cursed, Darkness speaks to me in my solitude, I fear that one night the Voice will be stronger than my mind".
Skald, Bard. "Show'em the wrath of the nordsmen!"
Demonslayer, Ranger "If you think some people are monsters, you haven't seen the worst yet..."
Elder Mythos Culstist, Cleric "Did you hear His call...?"
Totem Warrior, Barbarian "My ancestors smile at me, their spirit, the spirit of our clan protects me. Can you say the same?"
Metric user here. Both units are fine to me, almost 20 years using imperial units in D&D/Pf games. Yards were horrible, fts and lbs are easier, some quick basic math conversion and a little to none mental effort does the trick nowadays (3ft - 1m ~ 2lb - 1kg).
Mathematically inaccurate, but adequate. I'm not going to lie, my preference is still metric.
To me, Arcane Bond wizard's feature holds the key. In lots of fantasy themes wizards have an iconic item that helps them manifest magic.
Wands, Harry Potter.
The Magic Hat, Presto the Magician (D&D cartoon).
The Staff, Gandalf (not really, but kind of).
Give 'vancian casters' a unique item, something worth to sunder/steal in combat, keep material components for powerful spells only. Of course if this item is lost the caster can still cast spells with V/S components, and can be replaced.
Personally, I also agree that an overhaul in the spell system would feel refreshing.
I guess that line holds more than meets the eye, at least I hope so. What I really hope to see this time is a chance to completely block a fireball even at the cost of my own HP. Like saving the damsel in distress from a a dragon's breath, something like this (for some unknown reason the img was hard to link), pure awesomeness. Hm, now that I think about it... maybe this kind of feature will be left for other class to take...
Multiclassing was almost a must in 3.5, the game was so focused on PrC that it should've been remodeled to make the normal classes levels 1 to 10 and had their features compacted.
Paizo did a really good job balancing the core classes so I never had any real need in multiclassing, except for rol play purposes.
I am not against multiclassing, I am against 'powerhunting', and sometimes single classes can achieve the same result.