Find the Path, in my experience, has not proven to be a problematic spell, but that is simply because my players never used it, rather than due to the inherent effect of the spell not being problematic.
I think there are two ways of keeping the spell, yet making it's use less problematic. First of all, there should be some means of fooling the spell - perhaps another spell or set of spells, such as "Hide the Path" or "(Create) False Path" - the spells doing what their names suggest. This would enable a hidden civilization to hide its cities and generally provide the DM with tools to circumvent the spell and even to lead the users of the spell astray.
The second approach (and the two approaches can be combined) would be to make the use of Find the Path more interesting and challenging or simply to make the spell less useful and functional:
For example, the spell could get confused by different locations with the same names. Alternatively, the spell could serve not to find the path, but only the direction of the desired location, though in that case it would probably be better to call it "Find Direction" or "Find Location".
A more interesting, but also more difficult to implement, idea would be to have the spell advertise the location to more than just the caster of the spell. Perhaps the spell effectively gleans the path to the desired location from the snippets of information possessed by various persons, but in exchange for taking the information it gives them the information from the other 'information donors'. This would generally mean that the path to the location is given to PCs' competitors too and these competitors are alerted that somebody cast the spell... Perhaps, it could also be that some 'information donors' might refuse to 'donate' the information and thus the path generated by the spell could be incomplete.
I should note: When playing rather than DMing, I have only used Find the Path once, and it was to get our party out of a predicament when we were trapped in darkness and didn't know how to get out of the place we were in. It is, in fact, the only use of the spell I have ever seen in the game by anyone, so I am not sure just how much it's theoretical potential for abuse actually manifests. Still, the above suggestions should at least mitigate the possible abuse effects.
Thanks for the link - some of the suggestions in that thread are also interesting.
Find the Path came up in the alpha 2 discussion as well.
I didn't mind the old version as a GM; it does change the flavor of the game, but that happens in high-level play. I was also pretty strict about "no objects defined by a person or object", so no "room that the artifact I want in" or "dragon's hoard".
I do agree that it would be nice to see a reversible spell, or a material component from the destination. But I don't want to see it nerfed too badly.
I find it kind of ironic that they are considering removing find the path from Pathfinder. :)
Yes, it would be sadly ironic to have the spell removed from Pathfinder. That's why I would prefer to find a way to balance it better.
My players have started using it a lot lately, usually in conjunction with discern location or [locate object[/i] spells (since both provide location knowledge). This allows a group to travel directly to the location, bypassing any traps and most dangers.
My players are 19th-20th level, so this is not an issue. I would expect the characters to do be able to do this. I am just glad they did not figure it out earlier.
The problem with find the path is that it can short circuit a written adventure. For example, an adventure that requires the PCs to trek through a dense jungle to locate a lost city can be bypassed with one spell and the city's name. This is not a major problem for a DM building an adventure, but it can really screw up a published adventure.
I think think the Alpha 3 version is a step in the right direction while keeping the spell useful. Though I would a clear bonus to overland travel.
Lang:
The various means to speed ones movement while actually covering the distance traveled (fly and such, as compared to Teleport) are what make the "limited duration" really not all that limited.
The spell in itself isn't too terrible but combine it with Wind Walk and you have PC's able to fly to 500 feet above the tree tops and zip over land at amazing speeds while in gaseous form, all the while following the "invisible line" of Find the Path.
300 minutes is a long time to fly at 60mph- and if you are looking for a city you will probably find it, even in a large jungle. (yes I know 60mph isn't impressive to US, but to our characters it's the functional equivalent of warp 9. Zoom.)
-S
|
Problematic is the wording "specified destination".
If I don't know a locale can I specify it? For
example: can I specify "the dwarf king's treasure vault"
without knowing if it exists at all?
I think this is the reason so few people use it.
It can bog a game down while the DM and players debate the spirit of the wording.As a player, I don't like feeling I've somehow abused the spirit of the rules, so wouldn't think to ask a 'phishing' question such as this, though a scenario writer might be expecting the PCs to do just that.
Also, if your PC can do it, then so can anyone else. If something has remained hidden, despite the existence of this spell, it must be for some in-game reason. Players will just assume that a DM/writer has set up some convoluted premise to negate this spell, so why bother?
|
|
I find it kind of ironic that they are considering removing find the path from Pathfinder. :)
Aaah, but you see, the whole reason they need an organisation of explorers is to set off and see what's out there in the big wide world, since they can no longer rely on sitting at home casting badly-worded spells.
I was just pointing out the duration issue- Myself, i don't think FTP needs to be altered from 3.5.
But then, I don't think very many spells need to be adjusted, and in that I am in the minority.
-S
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Find the Path, in my experience, has not proven to be a problematic spell. I think there are two ways of keeping the spell, yet making it's use less problematic.
The spell isn't problematic. If the spell causes a problem, then you may need to alter your adventures. Find the Path is an iconic sacred cow spell. If you alter the game by nerfing that spell, you are not playing D&D since that spell and it's effect is supposed to short cut thru things.
My players used it one time to find a secret door in the side of a glacier(a dungeon adv) that otherwise would have been tough to find. It's the only time I remember the spell being used.
I see the potential for abuse with the old spell though. Maybe it could be downgraded to just aid with finding out direction(like a compass), locating nearest source of fresh water, other wilderness survival type stuff.
Make the spell's destination bigger, i.e. it stops working within 1000 yards of the target no matter how big it actually is.
LL
I like that idea.
The spell isn't problematic. If the spell causes a problem, then you may need to alter your adventures.
Oh, come on, James. Isn't this called the "Oberoni Fallacy", i.e. "Rule X is not flawed because the DM can always work around any flaws"?
Make the spell's destination bigger, i.e. it stops working
within 1000 yards of the target no matter how big it actually is.
The potential bickering about large or not could be avoided:
Large watchtower or small keep? Large or not so large lake?
One hunter's cabin is too small, how about five? Still not a camp?LL
This is a good idea, but I would add that it would be even better to randomize the distance at which it stops working: perhaps 1d4 miles.
|
|
[threadjack]How did Gorilla Grodd keep Gorilla City hidden from the humans of the DC Universe? Was it some sort of psionic device?
I know The Flash has been there, and Swamp Thing, but what about anyone else? And did they retain that knowledge when they left?[/threadjack]
EDIT: And of course, Themyscira, island home of the Amazons, hidden by the Greek gods in the Bermuda Triangle(?). No, seriously. I saw it on TV.
Hogarth:
They are simply pointing out an alternative view point.
Sometime the DM IS the problem, not a spell or spell combination. When the DM stops doing their job then it stops being a fallacy and starts being the DM's problem. Should the game as a whole suffer because some DM's won't step up to the plate? Absolutely not.
If you allow the players to get high enough to use high level abilities then you need to expand your campaign and adventure parameters to include those spells. If you are unwilling or unable to do so then you need to have the campaigns end earlier.
X isn't flawed because the Dm can work around any flaw
is different than
X isn't flawed because the DM isn't doing his job, and that makes X
seem more powerful than it should be.
The issue here is whether or not the spell Find the Path falls into the category of "the spell is broken, and therefore needs to be fixed"
or the category of
"the spell is fine but most DM's tend to ignore it when creating adventures and campaigns, and therefore it's their problem not the spell".
You are claiming he's using the fallacy but he is really just citing the 2nd category. Sometimes the DM sucks, not the spell or ability at issue.
-S
The issue here is whether or not the spell Find the Path falls into the category of "the spell is broken, and therefore needs to be fixed"
or the category of
"the spell is fine but most DM's tend to ignore it when creating adventures and campaigns, and therefore it's their problem not the spell".
You are claiming he's using the fallacy but he is really just citing the 2nd category. Sometimes the DM sucks, not the spell or ability at issue.
I think the difference is a bit subtle. They're both saying "if you (the DM) go through the correct mental gymnastics, you get something workable".
I'm remembering a dungeon (from Shackled City?) where a bunch of passageways are blocked off with thin walls for the express purpose of foiling "Find the Path". Apparently, whenever the inhabitants wanted to get from place to place, they would just burst through these fake walls like Kool-Aid Man and fix them later. That's the type of thing I mean by "mental gymnastics" in this case.
"Oh yeaaah!" :-)
The issue is that game play changes at different levels.
FTP is VERY broken if you are gonna try and squish your middle to high level PC's through yet another dungeon crawl. FTP destroys the dungeon crawl. Easily.
It's a "rite of passage" so to speak, being able to skip to the end. But by those levels the PC's can do Alot of things to thwart the dungeon if they so choose. This is just one method.
When you start getting to middle, and especially onto higher levels, the campaign has to change. It Must change and evolve or else some spells are going to start being "too powerful".
Quest objectives need to start shifting and badguys need to start getting alot smarter. The game as a while shifts slightly and more gradually away from the "dungeon crawl" and away from the "lets trek through 5000000 miles of jungle to find the lost city" and more towards "Ok we're at the city, the plot can begin!".
If the DM is unwilling or unable to make the campaign shift in those directions then FTP isn't broken. The DM is broken. Fixing the spell doesn't fix the underlying problem- the DM.
And there is NOTHING wrong with a DM being unwilling or unable to DM middle to high level campaigns. It's very complicated and can be very time consuming. All that is asked is that such DM's make those wishes known to the players and that campaigns thusly stop at the edge of the boundary where the DM is comfortable.
Myself, I do not Dm. I know full well that I am no good at it.
But, you don't see me taking white out and scissors to spells in an effort to change to game to suit my inadequacy in that regard. Instead, I just accept that I am not good at it, and I leave it to those who are.
-S
Quest objectives need to start shifting and badguys need to start getting alot smarter. The game as a while shifts slightly and more gradually away from the "dungeon crawl" and away from the "lets trek through 5000000 miles of jungle to find the lost city" and more towards "Ok we're at the city, the plot can begin!".
Don't forget the super-trapfinding aspect of the spell, too. I guess you can solve that by not having traps.
The DM can by-pass most annoying rules, but each time he has to think of doing so, he has less time and focus left for other things. Moreover, many of the 'solutions' to some problems arising from spells feel artificial and contrived, thus not adding to the imersion of the campaign.
As I understand the new version there is no "trap finding" unless you have traps on the way to a "large location".
(traps on the way to a logging camp size location, etc..)
it's no longer possible to find small rooms within a dungeon with the spell.. so FTP trap finding is relatively neutered.
If i understand it correctly.
-S
Maybe the best way to preserve the spell (at least in name if not ability) is to limit it to finding a path only to places you've already been to. This would, certainly, change its utility, but it would not render it useless. It would mean that you'd always be able to find your way home. Not so powerful, really, but still "finding a path".
I have to agree with Paizo overall on this one. Discovery really isn't much of a game theme if casting a single spell removes the need to travel and search. And, really, I think that in many ways not having a spell to find paths is perfect for Pathfinder. After all, the game is predicated on the characters finding the path...not just casting a spell that does it for them. ;)
Anyway, I'm not sure if any of this has been said before; I really didn't read the many threads on the spell. I just wanted to add my two cents. I hope someone finds it useful.
Kayn
Maybe the best way to preserve the spell (at least in name if not ability) is to limit it to finding a path only to places you've already been to. This would, certainly, change its utility, but it would not render it useless. It would mean that you'd always be able to find your way home. Not so powerful, really, but still "finding a path".
This, I like.
I'm always in Favor of making Arcane mark more than a magical Sharpie, so that's a good idea.
Or finding a path to something that you have Arcane Marked? This would give two spells more utility.
I think that this is probably the best suggestion put forth so far.
I might note that I think that all the classes that can cast find the path do not have arcane mark on their spell list.
Hogarth:
Yes. If the DM doesn't do the proper mental gymnastics for the level of campaign he is at, then it's gonna fall apart.
This is because of /alot/ of spells- not just this one.
As the game expands, the DM has to expand also or it all collapses.
D&D level progression is like a house of cards. It's very easy to start, but very complicated at the top. If the DM isn't willing to put in the effort to get to the top, he needs to stop where he is comfortable. There is nothing wrong with that. Not every person has to feel up to running a 12+ or 15+ or 20+ campaign. It's *alot* of time invested. a Ton. Most folks don't have that kind of time to go throwing around every week towards a game.
But if you don't have the time to "step up" the campaign as it progresses then you need to inform the players of this. If level 12+ is beyond you then cap the campaign at 11. Or let them slide into 12, show off their stuff abit, then retire them to the hall of fame.
*there is abolutely nothing wrong with this!*
FTP does exactly one thing.
It lets you find a place you haven't been before.
There are already multiple spells that let you go where you've already been. Some of them are lower level. We do not need another one.
Wanna go home? Cast teleport. It's faster and effects most if not all of the group in one casting. Greyhawk? Waterdeep? Same deal. If you've been there, you can already go back with the flick of a wrist.
The Power- the usefulness- the reason FTP was written- was to allow the PC's to locate locations they haven't yet located.
It has been greatly toned down in P3 to keep players from locating small rooms (i.e. the last room in a dungeon), while still allowing it to do its primary function. It lets PC's bypass normal terrain so they can get on with the adventure.
If the adventure you have planned involves the PC's slogging through a jungle, then you need to nerf alot more than FTP to force the PC's to do it. PC's by this level have already done the jungle thing. The desert thing. The arctic wasteland thing. The forest thing. The grasslands/plains thing. Forcing them through yet another will probably get as big a sigh as yet another dungeon crawl.
Yes, it makes the DM have to do some other work.. Not necessarily more- you just direct your work in other areas. (instead of working up a buncha jungle encounters, you assume FTP and skip to the city itself. Giving you plenty of time to work up a good city environment, whether it be cosmopolitan or ruin in nature).
Then the adventure begins.
I mean, lets face it. Finding the lost city of Wheerezitagain is rarely The adventure. The adventure is trying to find item X or person B, or getting person B to help you get item X, so you can do Z with it. FTP just lets you get to Whereiszitagain a little faster. Just like Teleport gets them home faster when the deed is done.
This spell does not need to be further neutered. It just needs to be accounted for when the DM is writing up his adventurs at 12+ level.
-S
Hogarth:
Yes. If the DM doesn't do the proper mental gymnastics for the level of campaign he is at, then it's gonna fall apart.
This is because of a /lot/ of spells- not just this one.
So fix them one at a time. :-)
I don't really have a problem with the "super" version of Find the Path being a 9th level spell (say); I just think level 6 is too low for finding any location you want, automatically bypassing all traps along the way. The ability to find the Lost City of Whatzis is pretty harmless, though; that's maybe a 6th level ability. YMMV.
Most of all, I don't want to see any more published adventures where the villains built really thin walls in front of every door just to foil Find The Path. That's lame!
I don't really have a problem with the "super" version of Find the Path being a 9th level spell (say); I just think level 6 is too low for finding any location you want, automatically bypassing all traps along the way.
Yes! Compare with discern location and it's clear there's something askew in 3.5. It's like no one bothered to think that maybe locate object/locate creature/find the path/discern location form a spell chain, and maybe they should be scaled against each other.
To my mind, find the path should be good for threading mazes and labyrinths, or finding a village in the jungle, but discern location would be needed for "where is the Lost City" or "how do I get to the treasure vault?"
Yes! Compare with discern location and it's clear there's something askew in 3.5. It's like no one bothered to think that maybe locate object/locate creature/find the path/discern location form a spell chain, and maybe they should be scaled against each other.
To my mind, find the path should be good for threading mazes and labyrinths, or finding a village in the jungle, but discern location would be needed for "where is the Lost City" or "how do I get to the treasure vault?"
Yes, they form a spell chain.
Yes, they should be scaled against each other.
That is basic game design and what this game revision should be about.
I am wondering, in terms of what Selgard said about the DM adjudicating the spell(s) properly, whether we accept that spell returns variable results. Spells, both arcane and divine, are mystical processes; on one occasion FtP may provide a glowing path through the jungle to the Lost City. On another occassion, the caster receives an 'impression' to head West; soon after the caster comes out of the spell's trance there is a knock at the door - a merchant asks whether the PCs will do escort his caravan westwards over the Blue Mountains [hint hint].
The detail provided is different, the reliability of the spell variable and the story progresses.
Progressing the story is after all the purpose of this game mechanic.
I have been, for the record, discussing from the point of view of the p3 version of find the path. While I didn't find the old one problematic, I'm not advocating a return to it.
I'll say it clearly: I am not advocating that FTP should bypass traps and allow folk to access small discrete locations.
I am however in favor of it finding large, gross physical locations.
(as in.. a city.. )
If I have been unclear in that, then I apologize.. It comes from posting on two threads at once that're discussing the same spell.
-S
I have been, for the record, discussing from the point of view of the p3 version of find the path. While I didn't find the old one problematic, I'm not advocating a return to it.
I'll say it clearly: I am not advocating that FTP should bypass traps and allow folk to access small discrete locations.
I am however in favor of it finding large, gross physical locations.
(as in.. a city.. )If I have been unclear in that, then I apologize.. It comes from posting on two threads at once that're discussing the same spell.
I admit, I thought you were advocating a return to the 3.5 version and its ability to avoid traps. I don't have any problem with the spell finding lost cities. If the DM wants a city to remain lost, just have something exceedingly nasty there to welcome any nosey Parkers. Problem solved. >:-)
I'll say it clearly: I am not advocating that FTP should bypass traps and allow folk to access small discrete locations. I am however in favor of it finding large, gross physical locations.
(as in.. a city.. )
I'll freely admit I was misinterpreting the stance as well, much as Hogarth was. Given the quote above, you'll get no disagreement from me.
|
|
Given that I've hardly ever seen the spell used, it's hardly as Iconic as say... Magic Missile. And besides we won't be playing D+D anyway, that's a trademark owned by Hasbro/WOTC. And they eliminated it from 4th edition from what I've seen.
Not trying to threadjack Not trying to threadjack.
Am I the only one who doesn't like magic Missle?
|
|
Am I the only one who doesn't like magic Missle?
Laws of statistics state that no, you are most likely not alone. In the minority? most liekly. Magic missile is popular, and is iconic. heck, i've seen people play mages just to use magic missile and other classes level dip just to obtain it (like a rogue. don't remember why he wanted it, but i think it had to do with assassinations somehow). my brother went so far as to find a way to play a wizard that ONLY uses that spell. but you're most likely not alone.
Am I the only one who doesn't like magic Missle?
What's not to love about magic missile? Twin Spell it, and it's like "The Excellent Prismatic Spray" from Jack Vance's Dying Earth books. I'd like even better to see an 8th level version that produces mad numbers of missiles.
Isn't that "The Most Excellent Prismatic Spray" ? :) The RPG is worth collecting btw.
Dunno what they call it in the RPG; I'm just going by my memory of "Mazirian the Magician."
How about the spell enabling the finding of a location only if the caster has something (we could even require an item of certain minimum value) from that location, which then becomes the spell's focus. That way the DM can control more easily what the spell can find and what remains hidden.
To add further difficulty, we could say that the above-mentioned spell focus is actually a spell component and is used up in the casting. That way, players wouldn't be likely use their artifact from the lost city they are trying to find, to cast the spell to find the city.