After bad experiences in previous APs, we reached a group decision to ban all movement magic above Expeditious Retreat and Spider Climb. No Fly, no Levitate, no Dimension Door, no Teleport, nada.
We're currently in the second part of module 4 and loving the results. By this point in the previous APs the PCs were all flying all the time, and we're finding the terrain interactions a lot more interesting without that. The PCs feel more...grounded, more like they're really there. And the fact that they have to travel has given the setting much more depth. They can name all the towns and interesting sites between the places they visit; it's not just "hitting the high points of the map."
I was afraid we'd hit too many situations which relied on Fly but so far the only really bad moment was the quasit in #1 (and the PCs wouldn't have had Fly yet anyway). I do have to avoid making flying enemies too tough, but it's doable. Most foes can't fly either, except for ones who actually have wings, and those are vulnerable in ways that magic-flying creatures aren't (they crash if they are held or entangled, for example).
The player's comment at the end of the giant attack on Sandpoint was "I'm sure glad the PCs weren't flying; that would have been much less fun."
Only worth trying if your players feel the same way, of course, but it has really worked for us.
Mary
|
This heartens me, as I was thinking of building an illusionist in the Thassionian mode. Still, with no grease, magic weaon, glitterdust, web, knock, rope trick, summons, or haste, to say nothing of the high level conjurations and transmutations, Pride has to be the hardest possible sin magic path to pick.
Interesting post.
I'm not that suprised that your having a good time with this. When I think about spells that I tend to have the most difficulties with as a DM its almost always the movement spells that are the problem.
Teleport increases the 5 minute work day effect by making it safe and easy for the PCs to stop what their doing, leave and come back later.
Wind walk is a spell that appears as a problem spell all the time on the boards.
Its mechanically confusing and seems to encourage the whole party to float through the adventure in an attempt to avoid the adventures pitfalls.
Spells that 'bypass' the adventure are usually ones that cause a DM to pull their hair out. I mean not only is it annoying for the DM but if it works as advertized chances are the players themselves have just cheated themselves out of some good gaming. It makes logical sense to do this from their characters point of view - their characters don't want to take undue risks after all, but for the players themselves, well the risk an all that desprate battling for your life is a big part of the fun. Avoiding it defeats the whole purpose of playing PCs that delve into dangerous places. Hence you actually end up at a place where the players are arguing among themselves about dropping the spell becuase some of them have totally lost patiance as the game has litterly become three hours of the DM reading descriptive text, the players saying they bypass the dangers of the room and the DM reading the descriptive text of the next room on and on. Terrible spell from a metagame perspective.
Planeshift tops the list of annoying spells from my perspective. It just seems to come around at far to low a level and I don't like my players zipping to heaven and hell with ease nor do I like the implication that their are many many mortals that can regularly traverse the different planes.
|
Are you kidding? an illusionist doesnt need those crap spells, they have the power of Imagination (cue cheesey cartoon music). They dont cast magic weapon, they make a Silent Image of a massive, black scythe oozing with necomantic magic that makes the enemy piss their pants and run for it. and as for the conjurations, thats what Shadow Conjuration and Evocation are for. seriously, illusionists dont need that utility, obviously good, crap. they have the most powerfull spells in the game, and the spells that have the least actual mechanical effect. what cant you do with an illusion, I ask you?
While planeshift's low level is a bit problematic, there is this issue: random location. sure, you can take a trip to hell and back, but you wind up back on the material surrounded by dark-skinned people with facepaint who make clicking sounds at you. I prefer to use Planeshift as an offesnive weapon, particularly on very evil people who would HATE the place they're being sent to. It's a save-or-loose touch spell.
"Hey, buddy! Have I got a treat for you! Get ready to meet...THE MORMONS!"
Plus, many of the planes are insanely dangerous, filled with demons, devils, nightwalkers, talking robo-cubes and ants, crazy frogs, and even, if you take a wrong turn, HTWT's. (Horrible Things With Tentacles).
|
seriously, illusionists dont need that utility, obviously good, crap. they have the most powerfull spells in the game, and the spells that have the least actual mechanical effect. what cant you do with an illusion, I ask you?
Hence the problem with illusionists. If it's not the DMs then Players don't pick up on the flaw with illusion spells, just because they're believed to be there, doesn't mean they're afraid of it and run away.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32
|
The key to dealing with "troublesome" (more on this below) spells is allow the NPCs to use them as much as the PCs. For example if the PCs attack a big, bad overlord (BBO) and kill a lot of minions and then retreat to heal, the BBO can teleport, hire some mercenaries and teleport back. Now the BBO has refreshed his forces, but also hired another group to set up a pincer move against his enemies.
Troublesome spells are only troublesome if you allow the NPCs to do things "fairly." Do the PCs consider how fair they are to use every single resource they have in order to take down their enemy? Usually, I doubt it. YMMV though.
However, I think the fact that the entire group decided to limit the movement spells is quite fair. Now not only can the PC not do it, but the NPCs can't either. That's cool.
However, one has to be careful doing this -- especially in published adventures. Image what the adventure would have been like in Red Hand of Doom if the spell fly hadn't been available. The whole module would have had to be changed.
If there was no fly spell, most of the scouts and mages couldn't have gotten to where they needed to be in order for the hobgoblins' invasion to have worked. Nor could some of the bad guys have had a method to escape which would have necessitated a change in the entire environs because the smart opponents would have set things up differently so they would have had a way to get away.
I find that limiting the system in some way works best in home-brew campaigns more than things like adventure paths. Not because of limiting what the PCs can do, but by limiting what the NPCs can do. After all the author of adventure paths don't know about these limitations and thus the internal logic of the game/campaign may fall apart.
The key to dealing with "troublesome" (more on this below) spells is allow the NPCs to use them as much as the PCs. For example if the PCs attack a big, bad overlord (BBO) and kill a lot of minions and then retreat to heal, the BBO can teleport, hire some mercenaries and teleport back. Now the BBO has refreshed his forces, but also hired another group to set up a pincer move against his enemies.
This is not how my player has tended to treat them; he doesn't kill a lot of minions and retreat, he kills the BBO and retreats. The preferred approach to Pathfinder #4, for example, would probably be a direct hit on the BBO, bypassing everything else.
Troublesome spells are only troublesome if you allow the NPCs to do things "fairly." Do the PCs consider how fair they are to use every single resource they have in order to take down their enemy? Usually, I doubt it. YMMV though.
Well, we tried it (through SCAP and AoW) and our mileage definitely varied. One whole module in AoW was just boring--intricate, lovely, challenging terrain, except that it was tactically best for the PCs to ignore all of it. That was the point where the player brought up banning movement spells. It wasn't a matter of NPC fairness--that module has rather few NPCs--it was a matter of losing all the interactions with the environment.
We also found that being on the receiving end of scry/buff/teleport did not make for a fun game: yes, it's fair and logical and appropriate, but everyone dies. Or the players go into paranoia mode trying to avoid this, which is what happened in our SCAP game. The whole endgame was completely dominated by this tactic. None of the adventure locations mattered. PC interaction with NPCs dried up, because being around allies just exposed them to a possible "Incoming!" --and they couldn't help us anyway against a fully buffed foe. I was a player in that one rather than GM, and if I had to do it again I would absolutely plead for banning the movement magic, even though one module would have to be completely rewritten.
I find that limiting the system in some way works best in home-brew campaigns more than things like adventure paths. Not because of limiting what the PCs can do, but by limiting what the NPCs can do. After all the author of adventure paths don't know about these limitations and thus the internal logic of the game/campaign may fall apart.
Every single encounter has to be carefully checked for logic and feasibility. On the other hand, that's pretty much necessary anyway, if your players are a stickler for logic (and mine is). Most modules have at least one or two logic issues built in.
So far RotRL hasn't handed me anything tough to fix. The NPC at the top of an unclimbable tower got there with *spider climb*. I've had to redo some spell lists, but that's it. I don't know, of course, if that will continue, but I'm prepared to do some major rewriting if I have to.
Mary
Are you kidding? an illusionist doesnt need those crap spells, they have the power of Imagination (cue cheesey cartoon music). They dont cast magic weapon, they make a Silent Image of a massive, black scythe oozing with necomantic magic that makes the enemy piss their pants and run for it. and as for the conjurations, thats what Shadow Conjuration and Evocation are for. seriously, illusionists dont need that utility, obviously good, crap. they have the most powerfull spells in the game, and the spells that have the least actual mechanical effect. what cant you do with an illusion, I ask you?
I generally take my cue from the players in regards to how well illusions work and what the likely interaction with the illusion is going to be. From my experience players will generally fight the horrible tentacled monster and will flee when its clear that they have to start making save or die rolls or are taking buck damage. Hence my NPCs basically react in the same way. They might not like the fact that its a horrible tentacled monster but until it proves that it has save or die attacks or does obscene damage their certianly not running.
While planeshift's low level is a bit problematic, there is this issue: random location. sure, you can take a trip to hell and back, but you wind up back on the material surrounded by dark-skinned people with facepaint who make clicking sounds at you. I prefer to use Planeshift as an offesnive weapon, particularly on very evil people who would HATE the place they're being sent to. It's a save-or-loose touch spell."Hey, buddy! Have I got a treat for you! Get ready to meet...THE MORMONS!"
Plus, many of the planes are insanely dangerous, filled with demons, devils, nightwalkers, talking robo-cubes and ants, crazy frogs, and even, if you take a wrong turn, HTWT's. (Horrible Things With Tentacles).
My complaint with the spell is not so much that players can easily visit the Nine Hells, though I don't like that. My real complaint is that players can easily visit the Seven Heavens and hobnob with the Gods of Good and Solars etc. This just really rubs me the wrong way. I like my planes to be distant and mysterious, stuff reserved for the very highest levels of play, but this really is not a mechanical problem with the spell its more of a flavour problem - from the PCs perspective plane shift and teleport are nearly the same.
|
I find it a little wierd that all movement spells have been canned. I mean D-door is beyong useful. I usually limit the usefulness of taking the long distance travel spells as opposed to the movement spells. I mean who is wasting a slot on teleport when they aren't using it. I find the local movement and movement altering stuff ok and very useful for all parties. I mean it is sort of implausible in a world of magic that each and every BBG, high level wizards included, is going to try for mechanical answers where magical is obviously easier and more practiced.
Well to each their own.
I find it a little wierd that all movement spells have been canned. I mean D-door is beyong useful. I usually limit the usefulness of taking the long distance travel spells as opposed to the movement spells. I mean who is wasting a slot on teleport when they aren't using it. I find the local movement and movement altering stuff ok and very useful for all parties. I mean it is sort of implausible in a world of magic that each and every BBG, high level wizards included, is going to try for mechanical answers where magical is obviously easier and more practiced.
Well to each their own.
Yeah, it's really useful, there's no doubt of that. But we found that when the PCs are all flying all the time (and that's a sensible tactic, and quite feasible with a wand) too much richness is lost. There's much less tactical manuvering. Half or more of all traps are simply bypassed. The Climb and Jump skills are useless, and Tumble is significantly weakened. Movement rates don't matter much.
A possibly dangerous rope bridge is an interesting setting for a fight--unless the PCs are all flying all the time. Same with a cascading series of underground waterfalls, or a narrow stone bridge above a seething green mist. Flying mounts lose much of their coolness if everyone flies anyway. And enemies without flight or strong ranged attacks become completely irrelevant anywhere that there's headroom.
As you say, to each their own--I wouldn't propose it as a general change, but it works for us. And since I'd seen other people ask "Can this work in an AP?" I wanted to confirm that, at least through #4, it can.
Mary
well, I actually don't see the problem (if the GM plays the BBEGs half-way decently and with some brains )- although I would agree that Wind Walk is severly broken/a spoil-sport spell
There are some pretty good defenses available versus scrying (for the major NPCs ) , and say a pair of empowered scrying traps (MoE) will likely ruin a scryer's day quite nicely. If the BBEG doesn't make the initial will saving throw first thing.... that is if the PCs even have a clear idea who they are fighting (check the Scrying will save modifiers in the PHB)... knowing a name and a rough description is NOT really enough. and if the BBEG wears a disguise or a full helmet/cowl when encountering the PCs.... and of course, you cannot actually scry a location (!), only if the (targeted) creature is present. Plus, you might not have any idea where someone actually is, only what the place looks like (and that only in the very immediate vicinity of the target scrryed.... 10' radius is what the spell shows you. And you cannot teleport to a place you have not been to, or know in some detail....
And if your scry fails, you cannot reattempt it for 24 hours´besides
The same goes for introducing lead sheeting to rooms and storages against the lower level detection magics. Have the target (and some of his bodyguards for good measure) have "Anticipate Teleport" (Spell Compendium) up through dedicated items - that should severly cut down on "sudden apperances". there is also "Greater Anticipate Teleport"... Mind Blank etc...
Alternatively, introduce a "manifesting" time for teleport spells, say 2 +1D6 rounds of time during which the players/teleported targets are rather helpless and immobile.. but already visible.
Ban/houserule wind walk to work only above-grounds (that is, in areas where natural wind does actually exist ). Think about the players having to manifest and re-orient as well once they arrive somewhere.
As for "Fly", the fact that you very much stick out once you are in the air, and cover is sparse/LoE almost universally exists commonly makes flying an unattractive choice around here. Nothing say "shoot me" more than a guy with fluttering robes floating above the battlefield.
Few archers would actually need any other pointers as to which guy to pick off first.
Nothing makes you more likely to be noticed by enemy scouts and innocent witnesses either - consider at what distance one usually spots birds in flight.... then extrapolate this for human-sized entities with fluttering garments, shiny metal bits etc.
A wand of "Fly" being a problem ? First-off the spell lasts only 5 mins (usually, from a 5th level wand ) , and with a 4-people group, you will be going through that wand very quickly (say, an hour = 12x5 mins = an hour, and that would be 48 of those 50 charges ), second, if someone actually plays a campaign where a "wand of flying" can be easily puchased at "Magics-R-us", the problem may be less the existence of the spell, than the availability of mass-market magic. Which - IMHO - means the cmapaign as a fundamental problem, not the existence of movement spells
Depowering scry is easy in Pathfinder. We know that prophecy and divination magics don't work correctly, and we know neither why or to what degree. This is true (afaik) for both players and GMs.
I've told this to my players, and warned them that to simulate this I would be mucking with such magic at my whim, possibly including outright lies about what their spells reveal. They're fine with this, and just accept that it's a quirk of the setting.
I expect that some day we'll be given game mechanics for dealing with this, but for now it's easy to just have divination stuff not work if it's going to wreck everyone's fun.
Alternatively, introduce a "manifesting" time for teleport spells, say 2 +1D6 rounds of time during which the players/teleported targets are rather helpless and immobile.. but already visible.
We implemented this for AoW and used it throughout. I think it was an 8 round delay for teleport and 2 rounds for greater teleport. We didn't allow attacks against the immobile teleporters; it worked like a Star Trek transporter where you're safe, but very visible (noisy too).
It did help with tactical use of teleport. The PCs would teleport into unoccupied rooms in the enemy areas instead of into the BBG's bedroom, and once in a while this would work out badly for them. And the retaliatory teleports by the enemy were less likely to be a TPK with a few rounds of warning.
The player wasn't satisfied, though; he pointed out that the PCs still had no connection to the places on the map, since they never traveled anywhere anymore, and that teleport still encouraged a combat style of doing one encounter and retreating.
I am not aiming for game-balance here, so much as for fun. You can run a balanced campaign with teleport, using the measures you suggest, but for us it is more fun not to do that. (It also requires a lot of work from the GM to fix things as you suggest. Pathfinder #4, for example, has zero defenses against teleport and the only defense against scrying is a detect-scrying spell on the BBG. No lead, no traps, nothing. So I'd have to put all of that in myself.)
As for Fly, the fact that you very much stick out once you are in the air, and cover is sparse/LoE almost universally exists commonly makes flying an unattractive choice around here. Nothing say "shoot me" more than a guy with fluttering robes floating above the battlefield.
So your players don't use it? I'm really surprised. I have not yet seen a 3rd Ed party which didn't use fly obsessively. You don't *have* to be floating above the battlefield. Flying at ground level is a perfect defense against grease, glyphs on the floor, pressure plates, leaving a scent trail, and many other problems, and going up is always an option if you need it. The AoW party normally flew at ground level but darted upwards when it was expedient.
You can also combine fly with invisibility, if you are worried about being seen from a distance.
When do your players use fly? What do they use it for?
Mary
We implemented this for AoW and used it throughout. I think it was an 8 round delay for teleport and 2 rounds for greater teleport. We didn't allow attacks against the immobile teleporters; it worked like a Star Trek transporter where you're safe, but very visible (noisy too).
....
So your players don't use it? I'm really surprised. I have not yet seen a 3rd Ed party which didn't use fly obsessively. You don't *have* to be floating above the battlefield. Flying at ground...
As for Fly, the fact that you very much stick out once you are in the air, and cover is sparse/LoE almost universally exists commonly makes flying an unattractive choice around here. Nothing say "shoot me" more than a guy with fluttering robes floating above the battlefield.
As for point #1 - Well, for one in our case the telporting-in people were absolutely vulnerable, which meant "teleport into vicinity of BBEG = slaughter". It didn't happen the first time around, but once it happened it was so bloody, that they never went for that tactic again, since it was "unsafe".
The same rule got applied to "Wind Walk" in my brother's campaign and it has massively cut down on the use of the spell with them as well.Since your GM likes interaction with the terrain - well, as I said, you cannot go by teleport where you haven't been yet (this applies to my reading of Wind Walk and Shadow Walk as well - precision geographic knowledge is absent in fantasy campaigns, no no navigation by map either ). So you have to trek there once... at least.
As for fly - it is a tactical spell, used in open area fights, usually with the mage(s) angling for positional advantage through it and trying to avoid direct melee contact with enemies. We do also pretty much take into account the effect of winds ( pretty maritime bunch of players here ), and use the wind effect table from page 95 of the DMG pretty much, with the "effect on creatures" increased by one size step for flying creatures. Which means, in anything above beaufort 6 (19 , nautical maile/hour of windspeed ) flying becomes... awkward and "low to the ground" where lesser wind's prevail (the further you go up, the more windspeeds increase, even in appearant calm
Defaulting to "tumble" checks for flying manoueveres and navigating gusty drafts.
As for ground based traps - I for one don't see Glyphs etc not being limited to physical contact, but as proximity-triggered ---> fly through a secured doorframe = walk through it = BOOM .
Even with high headspace, the area above a corridor might be filled and obstructed (beams. hanging, chandelier chains and roping etc.... hanging stalactites, spiderwebs, hanging lichens, or branches/roots ), making flight less of a beneficial thing.
As for my players using it ? Yes, they do, but the characters who do so _invest_ into that tactic, featwise, with skill-ranks and added defenses. Which lessens their impact in other fields.
In my STAP, the mage (wizard) started out with a level of monk for physical prowess anchored in his background, and picked the feat "mobile Casting" (ComplAdv methinks) to work magic while shooting from cover to cover or doing pop-up attacks from behind obstacles. He also uses an improved "hat of disguise" (dive away change looks, pop-up someplace else with an innocent smile ) and strong anti-missile defenses to survive the inevitable counterattacks, and still spends half his time gaining distance and doing prettyl little except dodging salvoes of counterstrikes hurled at him. He also got taken out nicely at least once while getting stunned in a power dive (crush ), and neutralized painfully with a "reciprocating gyre" (SC) used against him twice now.
For anti-obstacle use, air walk has so far proven far more popular.
But I admit that may be down to our groups style of play and way of thinking.
>>You can also combine fly with invisibility, if you are worried about being seen from a distance.<<
yes, and in that way burn even more resources (invis lasting 3 mins from your average wand, which means burning almost one wand/40 minutes), and waste another round buffing up for travel (!) every three minutes.
In my case, we also use a houserule (which doesn't impact this too much, but makes it even less attractive) , in that we limit visionary range during invisibility in the fashion of the LOtR movies - close up you get details, but further away, it all turns into misty stuff.
At the very least though, flying invisible, in anything like close formation (prior to combat, too, with readied weapon ) is a surefire method to cause painful and hazardous mid-air collisions... after all - you don't see each other as well, right ?