err.. No thank you.
The duration of the spell isn't long enough to justify destroying a potentially priceless artifact for each casting of the spell. You might as well just say it costs 100k per casting and be done with it, the overall effect will be the same.
Making it a focus component wouldn't be too bad of a deal though.. It could lead to some interesting things.
i.e. is the artifact -really- from that place? or from some other place? Then you get into the realm of what qualifies as "from that place". Crafted there? Found there? On a merchant caravan just passing through?
If you find an artifact on a ship wreck that was a merchantable item, being sold from city A to city B, which does it belong to? Both? Either? Neither? Would FTP lead you back to the sunken ship?
I'm not trying to be overly picky but if we have to have some limitation a relatively vague one would work best for this spell. It would allow DM's who wanted to heavily suppress the spell to make very expensive (either in in-game time, or in money) research and preparations to cast it, while allowing DM's who thought the spell was just fine to let it operate more or less as-is. Much like the rules regarding wildshape and "familiarity" with the animal. (a rule still present yet unexplained in p3).
Both sides of the "fence" are satisfied.
-S
Making it a focus component wouldn't be too bad of a deal though.. It could lead to some interesting things... I'm not trying to be overly picky but if we have to have some limitation a relatively vague one would work best for this spell.
I agree, a focus object seems like a reasonable limitation, and as opposed to mechanically "hard" nerfs like duration, etc., it allows different DMs to take it in slightly different directions without blatantly violating the RAW. The idea of a focus item is also nicely consistent with Manzorian's portrait of Kuluth-Mar in "Spire of Long Shadows" -- no one else finds the lost city because no one else has a focus. This sort of gimmick allows non-magical items to achieve central importance in a story, which I really like.
I'm going to jump on the 'Need a focus' bandwagon. It seems like a great fix all around.
|
I second the need for a focus.
And I also think this should be the case for other similar scrying effects.
It fits the mythological traditions of sympathetic magic. And it prevents speculative phishing...
"Show me the City of the Horny Frustrated Nymphos!"
"Darn it!"
<teleport 1000 miles and try again>
It also explains why some places haven't been found yet, or why people (like the Shades in FR) have to physically search for some locations despite having relatively decent maps. No artifact from the site = no instant locating it.
Of course it can also lead to some interesting authentication issues.
"Are you sure this vase came from Shan'gri'la? *casts FTP* *is brought to the pottery shop next door* -eyes the merchant-"
;p
-S
As a DM I will sign my opinion saying this spell needs to go forever. Entire dungeons wasted and session time forgotten.
Campaign killer.
Why not take 10 minutes and read the thread? And how about another 2-3 minutes, opening up p3 and reading the spell?
When you are done, come back, and we can discuss it if you still have any problems.
You'll find the spell doesn't deal in "ruining dungeons" anymore.
-S
Of course it can also lead to some interesting authentication issues.
"Are you sure this vase came from Shan'gri'la? *casts FTP* *is brought to the pottery shop next door* -eyes the merchant-"
Yes.
Add me to the focus camp.
I like the idea of find the path revealing the caster's position to a known location without a focus. If a group gets teleported against their will, the spell can revel their position to a known location. It can also reveal the quickest route to a known location.
Locating an unkown place, would require a focus item from that location. This also allows the DM to throw some twist in to a story. An idol from a lost culture might lead to a nearby village and not directly to the lost city. Once on location, the PCs must search by using divination spells, flight, and physically searching the area.
Yes! Everything Thraxus just said. :)
Why not take 10 minutes and read the thread? And how about another 2-3 minutes, opening up p3 and reading the spell?
When you are done, come back, and we can discuss it if you still have any problems.
I know.
Regardless, I don't like the spell at all. I am sure a Focus would make it more controlled, but I don't want the ability there at all. I don't want my PCs to search for a focus in order to bypass some game content.
Regardless, I don't like the spell at all. I am sure a Focus would make it more controlled, but I don't want the ability there at all. I don't want my PCs to search for a focus in order to bypass some game content.
You've always got the option of disallowing certain spells at your table entirely. Shoot, my group unanimously voted the "Monkey Grip" feat out of existence without a second thought, because we wanted to play D&D, not Anime RPG. In my experience, the find the path spell itself can be fun and useful, but it really did need some tweaking to keep it from being game-breaking. Paizo started that tweaking; the focus requirement for new places neatly finishes it, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Regardless, I don't like the spell at all. I am sure a Focus would make it more controlled, but I don't want the ability there at all. I don't want my PCs to search for a focus in order to bypass some game content.
But the search for the focus could actually be a valid, interesting, exciting adventure, in itself.
The initial objection seemed to be that the spell, as originally written, meant PCs were just bypassing lots of potentially interesting encounters, and never interacting with the terrain, the creatures, the NPCs and the wonderful exotic cultures of the campaign setting.
It's not about punishing the players, or taking their toys away, so they can't 'beat' the DM.
It's DMs saying to their players "You would be having so much more fun, if you were to focus less on the destination, and enjoy the journey along the way."
I am glad you guys and gals like the focus idea. Turning foci into components was just a possibility for those DMs who want the spell's use to be even more difficult - not really appropriate for mainstream Pathfinder rule.
I think using foci could actually be the solution to several other classes problematic spells. You want to kill the powerful dragon with a death effect spell? Well, perhaps you need to obtain a part of his body (perhaps a scale) for it to work. For teleport to a location that hasn't been visited before, you might need some soil from that location as a focus. These are just initial ideas, of course, but the principle could be applied more broadly to make some spells less problematic for the DM.
These are just initial ideas, of course, but the principle could be applied more broadly to make some spells less problematic for the DM.
Like greater scrying, for example. And teleport.
These are just initial ideas, of course, but the principle could be applied more broadly to make some spells less problematic for the DM.Like greater scrying, for example. And teleport.
Definitely! Among others...