RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think detect magic (and the other detect spells for that matter) are good where they are. There are already better versions of detect magic out there, such as arcane sight (normal and greater), identify, and analyze dweomer.
I'm pretty sure that temporary hit points don't stack, but can't find a rule to that effect in either Beta or the SRD. If I'm wrong and they do stack, it would get very messy to deal with temporary hit points from different sources when some expire because their duration is up, and you're down some. Example: Wizard5 has 20 hit points, casts false life and gets 12 temporary ones. Then later casts vampiric touch and gets 15 more. He's at 20 regualar and 27 temporary. Then, he takes 8 damage, bringing him to 20 regular and 19 temporary. Then vampiric touch expires. How many tempoary hit points does he have left?
EDIT: I checked the last 3.5 FAQ (v12212007, p. 109) and found this:
Do temporary hit points from two applications of the
same effect stack? What about from different effects? If I
have temporary hit points from multiple sources, how
should I apply damage?
Temporary hit points from two applications of the same
effect don’t stack; instead, the highest number of temporary hit
points applies in place of all others. Temporary hit points from
different sources stack, but you must keep track of them
separately.
For example, imagine a character who gained 15 temporary
hit points from an aid spell. After taking 8 points of damage,
she has 7 temporary hit points left from the spell. If another aid
spell were cast on the same character granting 12 temporary hit
points, this total would replace the other spell’s total, meaning
the character would now have 12 temporary hit points (rather
than 19). If the character then cast false life on herself, she
would add the full benefit of that spell to the temporary hit
points from the aid spell.
This also applies to temporary hit points gained from
energy drain and similar special abilities. Each successful
attack counts as one application of the effect (meaning that an
attack that bestows 2 or more negative levels still counts as
only one application of the effect). For example, a wight gains
5 temporary hit points each time it bestows a negative level
with its slam attack. If it bestows another negative level while it
has 2 temporary hit points remaining from the first attack, the
new temporary hit points would replace the old ones.
Temporary hit points are “first-in, first-out.” Damage
should be taken off the oldest temporary-hit-point-granting
effect first; when that effect is exhausted, apply damage to the
next oldest effect. For this reason, you must track each supply
of temporary hit points separately.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
A question I raised towards the end of the last thread was about the permanancy spell. I think that, despite it's name, it should have an instantaneous duration, so permanancied spells can't be dispelled. The cost is simply too much to risk having them go away the next time you get hit with (G)DM.
|
A question I raised towards the end of the last thread was about the permanancy spell. I think that, despite it's name, it should have an instantaneous duration, so permanancied spells can't be dispelled. The cost is simply too much to risk having them go away the next time you get hit with (G)DM.
Hey Joel, I was trying to find your exact comments but to no avail. Thanks for reposting.
I just realized I meant dispel magic rather than "detect".
I agree with permanency, or at least it should give you a bonus on the DC to have it dispelled.
Wierd, I searched my FAQ for "temporary hit points" and found nothing. But that certainly clarifies it to my liking. I just hope Jason includes the same or similar information in the Beta, because it can be a big issue.
Wight: "Hahaha. I'll just energy drain this entire village of commoners. Now I have an army of wights, and 5000 extra hit points!"
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I just realized I meant dispel magic rather than "detect".
Ah, as for dispel magic, I think overall it's just about right. From the previous conversation on it, I think that for area dispel, you should definately get to pick which spell on each target you're looking to dispel, since currently you don't get to choose, and if your preferred effect doesn't happen to be the first one, and something else is dispelled first, you're out of luck. I'm indifferent as to if area dispel only gives you one chance per target or lets you keep trying until you get one.
As for the comments about dispel magic isn't a good option, I'd have to disagree. If you're being torn to shreds because an enemy haste spell is giving all sorts of extra attacks, it might be worth using an area dispel to get rid of it (same goes with wall of fire, or any other battlefield control spell, such as black tentacles.) More importantly, against a highly buffed up enemy, a targeted dispel is almost always worth it, even if you only take down 3 of 6 spells they have up. Finally, the thought process that you waste your action to undo one of the enemy is only true if you have no allies. If you take down the mage armor and sheild spell on the enemy dragon for instance, the rest of your party can finally hit it with a reasonable chance of success, and you're the hero, even if you don't do any damage at all. Also, dispel magic doesn't allow spell resistance, nor saving throws. Against many monster spellcasters, they can have high saves and SR that aren't always easy for a PC to beat, and therefore taking down their defenses might be a spellcaster's best bet, especially if the enemy caster has lower caster level compared to their SR and saves (again, see dragons as an example)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
New Spell: Rusting Grasp
I'm seeing two problems with this spell, first, it only works on non-magical items. Since metal item using enemies are already limited in scope, and by the time you have a 7th level druid capable of casting this spell, you're simply not going to find many uses for the spell with that limitation. I'd suggest that non-magic items get no save, but magic ones get a will save. Second, as a 4th level spell, I think this is overpowered. Compare it to the spell shatter, which works on any type of object, has close range instead of touch, and is second level. I'd suggest making rusting grasp second level also.
Ah, as for dispel magic, I think overall it's just about right. From the previous conversation on it, I think that for area dispel, you should definately get to pick which spell on each target you're looking to dispel, since currently you don't get to choose, and if your preferred effect doesn't happen to be the first one, and something else is dispelled first, you're out of luck. I'm indifferent as to if area dispel only gives you one chance per target or lets you keep trying until you get one.
You have the choice of targeting a single spell or dispelling the area, you can't hit the area and target an individual active spell. So if haste is bugging you then you target the haste spell and you make the caster level check once against the entire spell. If you use the area version you might suppress haste on one guy and Bulls strength on another. I guess the 2 versions have their advantages.
The spell is definitely complex but I think relatively balanced. As I mentioned above, I don't have a lot of experience with this spell so YMMV.
Where were we?
Ah yes:
Detect magic - already good, not good enough, needs nerfing, too complicated?
Temporary hit points - do they stack or don't they?
My thread! My precious thread! What has they done to it?
Thanks for keeping the discussion rolling, Jal. :)
Also, we should take this opportunity to restate the ground rules of the original thread, for all the good they did:
- Read the SRD and Pathfinder Beta versions of a spell before making a post that references that spell.
- We're all human, so correct other poster's mistakes about the spells politely.
- Try not to post about the same spell repeatedly. Make one or two posts with your thoughts on a single spell, then move on to a new one. If you want to argue, please start another thread so we don't have to!
- Talk about spells. No alternate magic systems, no systems at all, lest they are contained in the text of a spell!
- Because of the PF design goals, it's always better to say "Spell x needs these changes to be worth it's level" than to say "Spell x should be y level."
Of course, I have no real authority over anything, but if people had followed the original guidelines, the other post would never have closed! I officially hand my Ceremonial Scepter of OP over to Jal Dorak, long may he reign!
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I found another spell in my slow read through Beta that I think needs a slight change.
Shambler: Currently, you cast it (9th level druid spell), and you get 1d4+2 11HD shambling mounds for 7 days or 7 months if only on guard duty. Overall, not a big deal, since by the time you can cast 9th level spells, shamling mounds aren't a huge threat. However, the spell takes 1 standard action to cast, and has no limit as to how many times you can cast it in a time period. Therefore, even if you only have 1 9th level spell per day, you can cast it 6 days in a row before making an attack, entering a dungeon, etc. and have 6d4+12 shambling mounds.
I think a simple fix would be to add a line that states: "Casting Shambler ends the effects of a previous casting of the spell."
|
|
Of course, I have no real authority over anything, but if people had followed the original guidelines, the other post would never have closed! I officially hand my Ceremonial Scepter of OP over to Jal Dorak, long may he reign!
I broke my share of your rules, try as I did at first. I shamefully hand the scepter over to Joel.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I broke my share of your rules, try as I did at first. I shamefully hand the scepter over to Joel.
Of course, I have no real authority over anything, but if people had followed the original guidelines, the other post would never have closed! I officially hand my Ceremonial Scepter of OP over to Jal Dorak, long may he reign!
Oh, crap! I better start breaking those rules to ditch the responsibility!
I hereby propose using an alternate magic system based on the numerology of your character's name, modified by astrological influences of the current campaign day and character's birthday!
Oh, crap! I better start breaking those rules to ditch the responsibility!I hereby propose using an alternate magic system based on the numerology of your character's name, modified by astrological influences of the current campaign day and character's birthday!
No good. I failed to look up the rules in my time as OP. It turns out the post is largely ceremonial. I'm afraid you're stuck with it until you hand it off to another deserving soul.
Seriously though, it's evident that Gary needs some help policing this place since the Beta. If everyone just agrees to follow the decrees of the OP (in this case, no longer me) and actively ignore certain people, perhaps they'll go away?
Social experiment. Next jerk who shows up, when Jal (or Joel) waves the Scepter and invokes the jerk's name, everyone will ignore him and continue discussion! Sound good?
Also, is it wrong that your joke system sounds kind of cool?
Back on topic...
I think a simple fix would be to add a line that states: "Casting Shambler ends the effects of a previous casting of the spell."
Hm. Well... it is 9th level. If you want to go ahead and have a 6 day casting time for a ninth level spell, then you'd better get a pretty big army out of it. I don't have a conceptual problem with a 17th level druid spending a week walking around getting the entire forest to mobilize for battle. It's actually kind of cool that way.
Hm. Well... it is 9th level. If you want to go ahead and have a 6 day casting time for a ninth level spell, then you'd better get a pretty big army out of it. I don't have a conceptual problem with a 17th level druid spending a week walking around getting the entire forest to mobilize for battle. It's actually kind of cool that way.
Hmm... 6d4+2 is an average of 17 Shambling Mounds... That's not near as devastating as some 9th level effects. A 20th level druid might have 51+... Plus there is the logistics of moving around 17-50 large mounds. On the other hand, consider the defensive end of this spell. A 17th level druid can have a grove defended by an army of 940 Shamblers (over 2700 for the druid 20).
The only downside to the 7 month version of the spell is they can't more than 30' from where they are summoned. I guess that druid on defensive could play a long game of hide and seek while the group assaulting him depletes their resources fighting shambling mounds. Plus the defending druid could go with say only 470 on permanent guard duty and have a constant body guard of 8 or so that stay with him. Combine this with wild shape into a shambling mound and someone has a huge mess on their hands.
The defending druid could go with say only 470 on permanent guard duty and have a constant body guard of 8 or so that stay with him. Combine this with wild shape into a shambling mound and someone has a huge mess on their hands.
Sounds to me like an incredible fortress for a campaign ending Druid BBEG. "He has called nature itself to serve his bidding." By way of breaking the "too much on one spell rule," how would your party go about defeating this scenario?
The defending druid could go with say only 470 on permanent guard duty and have a constant body guard of 8 or so that stay with him. Combine this with wild shape into a shambling mound and someone has a huge mess on their hands.Sounds to me like an incredible fortress for a campaign ending Druid BBEG. "He has called nature itself to serve his bidding." By way of breaking the "too much on one spell rule," how would your party go about defeating this scenario?
Well that's the interesting part, there is a typo in the spell description (IMO). The spell says "The shambler spell creates 1d4+2 shambling mounds with 11 HD each. The creatures willingly aid you in combat or battle, perform a specific mission, or serve as bodyguards. The creatures remain with you for seven days unless you dismiss them. If the shamblers are created only for guard duty, however, the duration of the spell is seven months. In this case, the shamblers can only be ordered to guard a specific site or location. Shamblers summoned to guard duty cannot move outside the spell’s range, which is measured from the point where each first appeared.". So are the shamblers created or summoned? If they are summoned they can be held off with protection from evil which would make the big challenge finding the BBEG. If they are created then PFE won't help much. The spell is labeled Conjuration (Creation) not Conjuration (Summoning) so to me it seems like they are not summoned creatures which makes much nastier to work around.
The other problem I see is that if they are created can they be dispelled? I think since it's a spell with a set duration then they probably could but I don't think it's cut and dry.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
A question I raised towards the end of the last thread was about the permanancy spell. I think that, despite it's name, it should have an instantaneous duration, so permanancied spells can't be dispelled. The cost is simply too much to risk having them go away the next time you get hit with (G)DM.
I was thinking about that this morning and would agree; despite the irony at permanency not being, well, PERMANENT, it would work much better as an instantaneous effect. That way, DM vs. it would work like DM vs. a magic item and would suppress it for 1d4 rounds (or minutes or whatever it is).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
EDIT: I checked the last 3.5 FAQ (v12212007, p. 109) and found this:
Do temporary hit points from two applications of the
same effect stack? What about from different effects? If I
have temporary hit points from multiple sources, how
should I apply damage?
Temporary hit points from two applications of the same
effect don’t stack; instead, the highest number of temporary hit
points applies in place of all others. Temporary hit points from
different sources stack, but you must keep track of them
separately.
IMO, this is a really dumb rule and fraught with annoying complexity. Do you decide when you get hit which THP pool you will use? Bleah.
I would strongly hope that the rule be clarified in PFRPG that THP don't stack with THP. Period.
Otherwise, I should be adding aid on top of heroes' feast on top of false life. I guess it's not the end of the world, it's just hit points, and totals of less than 20 per spell (yeah, VT can get more than that eventually), but it just seems really clunky.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
New Spell: Rusting Grasp
I'm seeing two problems with this spell, first, it only works on non-magical items. Since metal item using enemies are already limited in scope, and by the time you have a 7th level druid capable of casting this spell, you're simply not going to find many uses for the spell with that limitation. I'd suggest that non-magic items get no save, but magic ones get a will save. Second, as a 4th level spell, I think this is overpowered. Compare it to the spell shatter, which works on any type of object, has close range instead of touch, and is second level. I'd suggest making rusting grasp second level also.
Ah, but wait; we're trying to see what more might be done to make it worth the higher-level effect, and here's the thing that makes RG good (the last sentence of the spell description in the PH):
"The spell lasts for 1 round per level, and you can make one melee touch attack per round."
Shatter is one shot. RG can be used repeatedly.
Now, I would agree with you that it is lame that magical metal is immune, and I think your stated fix is a good one - magical items of metal get a save (probably Fort), nonmagical items do not.
Then again, to touch briefly on the "casters are overpowered" concept that derailed the previous thread, that does make this spell WAY better for druids vs. fighters and such, giving them yet one more way to screw with them and break their stuff, so maybe we shouldn't be trying to up-charge spells (especially anti-fighter spells) so much as we try to downgrade the problem spells into the land of reasonability.
Also, as a side note, there are weapon and armor-using monsters that use non-magical armor, shields, and weapons - I'm thinking mostly of giants here, but humanoids and monstrous humanoid monsters, with their wealth level far lower than PCs or even NPCs, might well be subject to this spell. Is it great for 4th level? Only in the right circumstance, so certainly a long ways down the road from other options, but it has its uses.
I dunno, I could slide either way...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I broke my share of your rules, try as I did at first. I shamefully hand the scepter over to Joel.
Of course, I have no real authority over anything, but if people had followed the original guidelines, the other post would never have closed! I officially hand my Ceremonial Scepter of OP over to Jal Dorak, long may he reign!
Carefully observe me not picking it up. I did my part to feed the madness. Special relativity and fail indeed... :)
I've been reading a lot of the Beta over the weekend. Looks like a lot of my "charm" questions are answered in the back of the book where it describes "conditions" and says a lot about what a charmed creature will or won't do.
I still think it might be an interesting model to have charm be a personal spell that just gives you a bonus to Diplomacy, rather than an "attack spell" that you have to cast on someone else.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I just realized I meant dispel magic rather than "detect".Ah, as for dispel magic, I think overall it's just about right. From the previous conversation on it, I think that for area dispel, you should definately get to pick which spell on each target you're looking to dispel, since currently you don't get to choose, and if your preferred effect doesn't happen to be the first one, and something else is dispelled first, you're out of luck. I'm indifferent as to if area dispel only gives you one chance per target or lets you keep trying until you get one.
As for the comments about dispel magic isn't a good option, I'd have to disagree. If you're being torn to shreds because an enemy haste spell is giving all sorts of extra attacks, it might be worth using an area dispel to get rid of it (same goes with wall of fire, or any other battlefield control spell, such as black tentacles.) More importantly, against a highly buffed up enemy, a targeted dispel is almost always worth it, even if you only take down 3 of 6 spells they have up. Finally, the thought process that you waste your action to undo one of the enemy is only true if you have no allies. If you take down the mage armor and sheild spell on the enemy dragon for instance, the rest of your party can finally hit it with a reasonable chance of success, and you're the hero, even if you don't do any damage at all. Also, dispel magic doesn't allow spell resistance, nor saving throws. Against many monster spellcasters, they can have high saves and SR that aren't always easy for a PC to beat, and therefore taking down their defenses might be a spellcaster's best bet, especially if the enemy caster has lower caster level compared to their SR and saves (again, see dragons as an example)
One thing that might be useful to specify about DM is whether or not it is stopped by effects that ignore 3rd level spells.
To wit:
1. Some monsters are immune to spells below a certain level (nightshades, rakshasa) - are they immune to having personal spells dispelled?
2. You can dispel a globe of invulnerability with a targeted dispel but not with an area dispel. The globe "excludes the effects" of 4th level spells and lower (3rd for LGoI). It stands to reason, then, that the GoI (or LGoI) also protects you against being dispelled while you're inside (not against GDM, though). Seems a little funky, but it should work, shouldn't it?
As a side note, I would personally like to see a stipulation that DM, as a special property of the spell, cannot be counterspelled. The reason is that this would prevent casters and super-buffers from using a dirt-cheap ring of counterspells as a defense against dispelling (sure, it only works once and then you have to 'reload' it, but how often are you getting hit with a targeted dispel anyway?).
Part of the balance of being a caster MUST be the potential for your magic to get zapped; otherwise, all the casters-are-god stories come true, and it's no risk, all reward. Bleah to that.
And this spoken by someone who is currently playing a character AND a cohort who both have such a ring with such a spell (because the ring is so cheap, you can get a 'no slot' ring trivially with HL wealth).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
One thing that might be useful to specify about DM is whether or not it is stopped by effects that ignore 3rd level spells.
To wit:
1. Some monsters are immune to spells below a certain level (nightshades, rakshasa) - are they immune to having personal spells dispelled?
2. You can dispel a globe of invulnerability with a targeted dispel but not with an area dispel. The globe "excludes the effects" of 4th level spells and lower (3rd for LGoI). It stands to reason, then, that the GoI (or LGoI) also protects you against being dispelled while you're inside (not against GDM, though). Seems a little funky, but it should work, shouldn't it?
As a side note, I would personally like to see a stipulation that DM, as a special property of the spell, cannot be counterspelled. The reason is that this would prevent casters and super-buffers from using a dirt-cheap ring of counterspells as a defense against dispelling (sure, it only works once and then you have to 'reload' it, but how often are you getting hit with a targeted dispel anyway?).
Part of the balance of being a caster MUST be the potential for your magic to get zapped; otherwise, all the casters-are-god stories come true, and it's no risk, all reward. Bleah to that.
And this spoken by someone who is currently playing a character AND a cohort who both have such a ring with such a spell (because the ring is so cheap, you can get a 'no slot' ring trivially with HL wealth).
1. DM would work against these creatures, since it's actually targeting the magic, not the creatures (even with a targeted version, it's simply targeting the magic in a locus around that creature - the DM doesn't actually interact with the creature at all). Clarification on this wouldn't be a bad thing, however.
2. I don't see why DM wouldn't work if targeted on a Globe itself (unless the globe description specifically stated that DM didn't work, such as wall of force).
Side Note - I'd agree. My interpreation on #1 suggests that the ring of counterspells wouldn't apply, since technically DM doesn't work on the creature, but the magic on the creature. Also would be good to have clarified.
IMO, this is a really dumb rule and fraught with annoying complexity. Do you decide when you get hit which THP pool you will use? Bleah.
This doesn't have to be complicated - it could be something simple, like the most recent THP are taken away first - last in, first out - or the first ones you get are taken away first - first in, first out. I like last in, first out, personally.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
This doesn't have to be complicated - it could be something simple, like the most recent THP are taken away first - last in, first out - or the first ones you get are taken away first - first in, first out. I like last in, first out, personally.
IMO, this is a really dumb rule and fraught with annoying complexity. Do you decide when you get hit which THP pool you will use? Bleah.
The last paragraph of the FAQ I quoted did say that they should be removed First In - First Out, so that your oldest THP get removed first.
|
|
I think it is ridiculous that the bonuses stack to begin with (I understand replacing them with ne ones, just like re-casting haste before the spell actually runs out) but having different sources stack, and having multiple tallies, WHY?
Every other typed-bonus in the game (with the exception of Dodge) does not stack. I consider "temporary" a type of bonus. It would be far easier if they just didn't stack for any combination of spells.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The last paragraph of the FAQ I quoted did say that they should be removed First In - First Out, so that your oldest THP get removed first.This doesn't have to be complicated - it could be something simple, like the most recent THP are taken away first - last in, first out - or the first ones you get are taken away first - first in, first out. I like last in, first out, personally.
IMO, this is a really dumb rule and fraught with annoying complexity. Do you decide when you get hit which THP pool you will use? Bleah.
Well, that being clarified makes it less complicated, so that is to the good. Also, the FAQ stipulation about them having to be from different sources is good - so no fair chain-casting false life to get a zillion hit points (for those situations where hit points are critical).
I am still of the opinion that it's dumb, though. YMMV.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Moving on to another new spell, how about the classic "how exactly does this work anyway?" spell: mirror image.
Maybe it's just lazy DMing, or some artifact left over from the gold box D&D PC games, but MI usually seems to end up being "this spell absorbs N attacks" effect, with each one having a chance to actually hit you or one of your duplicates. Or, maybe it's from paragraph 3 of the spell description:
Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment.
The thing is, that general rule should really rarely apply to the spell. Here's the trick, and maybe it's a problem of implementation, because if you actually apply the description of the spell in the second paragraph it becomes both less powerful but also horrifically complicated.
Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total). These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.
It would seem from this description that each image is in its own square, as opposed to just being this whirligig of images zipping around your person, despite the fact that it is a personal spell. So... exactly how far away from you can they go? What kind of action does it take to move them? The first paragraph of the spell says they "stay near you," but how near?
At first, you'd think that they mirror your actions, so they move when you move and in the direction that you move. But that ain't so.
You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image.
Okay, so the images don't move in synchrony with you, because you can move through their space.
The passage above is a key to making the spell less awesome than it normally plays, because the confusion over which is you and which is the image ONLY happens when you move through an image. Ergo, when and if an attack hits the real you, since you don't pop like an image, it is immediately obvious to everyone which is the real you UNTIL you can take your turn and move through an image.
This is supported in paragraph 4 when it states
While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded.
If you don't move through one or more images, the real you is obvious.
The figments may also move through each other. The figments mimic your actions, pretending to cast spells when you cast a spell, drink potions when you drink a potion, levitate when you levitate, and so on.
Here we have two conflicting sentences. The figments mimic your actions and "stay near you," but they also allow you to move through them and can independently move through each other!
This is the place where the spell goes into crazy land, because when you cast MI you aren't placing a little counter next to your figure to show how many images you have left in some sort of abstract sense. You need to place actual images on the encounter map, and you need to show where you are going and where they are going every round. You are, in effect, an illusionary swarm of yourself, but the rules are silent on exactly how far apart you can be (as long as they are within 5' of you or each other, it's within the literal text of the rules) and whether it should be any kind of action to direct the figments to do stuff.
Compare it to the 6th level mislead spell, which has the nice effect of giving you greater invis, but also:
1. Gives you ONE illusory duplicate.
2. If you want to direct its movements, you have to concentrate on it.
3. If you stop concentrating on it, it goes away in 3 rounds (compare to MI's 1 min/lvl duration)
4. Can be disbelieved
True, the duplicate can't be popped by an attack, but still compare to the 2nd level MI spell.
The last fuzzy issue is how the spell interacts with "attacks."
Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
The fact that the "attack = poof" sentence is followed by a sentence describing the image's AC seems to suggest a physical attack, or an attack that would do hit point damage. The open-ended invisibility rule about attack = direct offensive action doesn't apply, because that rule states "for the purposes of this spell... "; however, the MI spell itself gives the specific example of the figments "reacting normally" to area spells, including appearing burned or dead from FB.
WTF does that mean? The way I've always seen it played is that they look like you look after the FB goes off - if you look burned, they look burned, if you look dead, they look dead, but the wording is kinda vague and doesn't make any reference to your appearance.
Do you need a roll to hit to poof an image? If so, what about MI vs. a swarm or mob attack? It's auto-damage with no attack roll, so would it pop every image in the area or not? If summon swarm pops an image, then what about flaming sphere? It's a ball of fire that rolls through an area until it hits and damages (save neg). Does FS ignore an MI because it's not a creature? Or does it pop the first image it hits and then stop? What happens if you cast ray of enfeeblement at an MI. Is that an attack, so it pops, or does it do nothing because the image is a figment? What about slow or doom or cause fear or any single-target (or multi-target) attack spell that doesn't have an attack roll? And, of course, what about FB, or any AoE spell. It does damage to every creature, object, and square in its AoE. Can you construe that somehow as NOT an attack?
Really, I don't have any problem with nerfing MI, because as it is typically played it is way too good. It ignores most of your low-level countermeasures vs. spells that help you avoid being targeted (glitterdust, faerie fire, darkvision, see invisibility, Blind-fight). True, it can be whittled down by attacks, unlike invisibility, blur, displacement, darkness, obscuring mist, and the like, but in regular combat it seems to be much more obnoxious than any of those. Shoot, your best option to attack someone with MI may be to run up to the target and close your eyes while attacking and just suck up the miss chance.
In sum, it's only a 2nd level spell; it shouldn't BE super-awesome. AoE spells go boom and images get wiped off the board. I think that would be a good clarification that would help de-awesome this spell.
Still, even if they don't change it, as MI stands, here are the salient points in how the spell should be played in the RAW:
1. The images don't share your space, they appear in spaces AROUND you.
2. If anyone hits the real you, then everyone knows which one is the real you until the next time you get to move (and can move through a square).
3. The images are unreal figments that take up a space, but because they are figments they have no substance. Creatures can walk right through them. If you don't want to effectively 'waste' images, you have to rearrange them so they aren't sharing spaces with other creatures or objects (which would make their illusory nature obvious), but you are somewhat limited because they all have to be next to you or each other.
4. It would be nice for some rules clarification on how you make the images move. It would seem they mimic everything you do except movement, so how that works would be helpful.
As for anti-MI countermeasures:
You could in theory look for the real caster with a move-through. The space you are blocked from entering is the real caster. A smart caster could, of course, let you move through, but unless all of the images had done that, you would just attack the one that moved out of your way. The images would mimic your action, but would you move out of its way proactively the first time someone moves through an image?
(Eh, it's a weird concept and depends on how REactive images can be when it's not your turn.)
Also, and you'd need a pretty high skill roll to do this in mid-combat, but you could make a Search, Spot, or Survival (track) roll to see which image leaves footsteps. (you can't use vision or hearing to tell the IMAGES apart, but you could look at the ground).
|
|
Don't get me started on a targetted dispel against mirror image.
I agree, MI needs to be rewritten completely - something like:
"This spell creates an effect similar to a prism. No matter what angle the caster is viewed at, there appears to be 1d4+(1 per 3 caster level) images of the caster in the same space. If a creature attempts an attack roll against the caster, they make the attack roll as normal. If the attack succeeds, there is a percentage chance they attacked a false image instead of the real caster. This percentage is equal to 5 x the number of images. If an image was attacked, that single image is negated, reducing the total number of images by one.
Effects that target the caster without an attack roll, and area effects, are not affected by this spell. Since the images are a reflection of the caster at all times, if the caster moves or is altered somehow the images instantly change to reflect that alteration. Only creatures relying primarily on sight in combat are affected by this spell."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Don't get me started on a targetted dispel against mirror image.
I agree, MI needs to be rewritten completely - something like:
"This spell creates an effect similar to a prism. No matter what angle the caster is viewed at, there appears to be 1d4+(1 per 3 caster level) images of the caster in the same space. If a creature attempts an attack roll against the caster, they make the attack roll as normal. If the attack succeeds, there is a percentage chance they attacked a false image instead of the real caster. This percentage is equal to 5 x the number of images. If an image was attacked, that single image is negated, reducing the total number of images by one.
Effects that target the caster without an attack roll, and area effects, are not affected by this spell. Since the images are a reflection of the caster at all times, if the caster moves or is altered somehow the images instantly change to reflect that alteration. Only creatures relying primarily on sight in combat are affected by this spell."
It's a nice rewrite but it makes me wonder: On average this spell becomes a variant of blur. They're both 2nd level illusions that last 1 minute/level.
I guess you could rationalize the distinction as this:
1. MI is better because it gives a (usually) higher miss chance
2. Blur is better because you can cast it on other people (MI is personal) and the miss chance doesn't go down when you're attacked.
There's a difference, but pretty slim. How can we make the spells distinct without making one ludicrously more awesome?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
A bunch of stuff about mirror image.
On average this spell becomes a variant of blur. They're both 2nd level illusions that last 1 minute/level.
I guess you could rationalize the distinction as this:
1. MI is better because it gives a (usually) higher miss chance
2. Blur is better because you can cast it on other people (MI is personal) and the miss chance doesn't go down when you're attacked.
There's a difference, but pretty slim. How can we make the spells distinct without making one ludicrously more awesome?
I think that this is a case of blurring (sorry, no pun intended) the line between the rules of the spell and the flavor text of the spell. Just like fireball states that it can melt lead, gold, and other softer metals, there's no game rules for having that happen, or it damaging gold jewelery, coins, etc.
I do agree that the flavor text part of MI is poorly tied to its effect, and should probably be re-written. However, I don't see a big problem with the rules of mirror image. Anything with an attack roll has to check to see if it hits the image, for each and every attack, even if you hit the real target previously in the same action. The images shuffle around too fast - remember, that in a combat, it's assumed that people are moving around within their space, even when it's not their turn. Any spell or effect that requires a saving throw doesn't interact with the images at all. If that spell or effect is successful against the target, any physical changes show up on the images also.
I do agree that the blur vs. mirror image comparison is interesting, since they're both 2nd level illusion spells for personal defense. In general, MI is better in the short term, but those images go pretty quick, while in a longer combat, blur will stick around the entire time. Also, both spells can be stacked with each other, since MI doesn't provide a miss chance per se. One suggestion to spread the illusion defense spells out a bit would be:
1st level - illusionary double (works like mirror image, but only 1 image)
2nd level - blur
3rd level - mirror image as written, but 1 image +1 per 2 caster levels, max 8
4th level - displacement, but change duration to 1 min/level
|
|
Don't get me started on a targetted dispel against mirror image.
I agree, MI needs to be rewritten completely - something like:
"This spell creates an effect similar to a prism. No matter what angle the caster is viewed at, there appears to be 1d4+(1 per 3 caster level) images of the caster in the same space. If a creature attempts an attack roll against the caster, they make the attack roll as normal. If the attack succeeds, there is a percentage chance they attacked a false image instead of the real caster. This percentage is equal to 5 x the number of images. If an image was attacked, that single image is negated, reducing the total number of images by one.
Effects that target the caster without an attack roll, and area effects, are not affected by this spell. Since the images are a reflection of the caster at all times, if the caster moves or is altered somehow the images instantly change to reflect that alteration. Only creatures relying primarily on sight in combat are affected by this spell."
It's a nice rewrite but it makes me wonder: On average this spell becomes a variant of blur. They're both 2nd level illusions that last 1 minute/level.
I guess you could rationalize the distinction as this:
1. MI is better because it gives a (usually) higher miss chance
2. Blur is better because you can cast it on other people (MI is personal) and the miss chance doesn't go down when you're attacked.
There's a difference, but pretty slim. How can we make the spells distinct without making one ludicrously more awesome?
Yeah, I noticed the same thing in my rewrite - you caught exactly what I thought of adding, but it is kind of wierd to critique your own suggestion so I let it be.
As to making it a bit more "different" than blur. I guess you could change it so that targeted spells also have the same chance of failure, if they would affect the caster they dispel one image. That would also apply to dispel magic, but not area dispel.
Ack, maybe the spell should just create illusory constructs.
Mirror Image
Mirror Image is a template that is applied to the spellcaster when casting the spell of the same name. The spell creates 1d4+1/3 CL of this creature.
Size and Type
The image has the construct type. The image has the same size as the caster.
Hit Dice
The image has the same HD as the caster for determining effects and determining saving throws. A mirror image has 1 hit point.
Speed
The image has the same speed as the caster, but cannot move more than 5 feet from the caster or another image.
Armor Class
An image has an AC of 10 + caster's Int + size modifier.
Attacks
An image cannot attack. The image can appear to attack, but cannot deal damage or threaten an opponent.
Special Attacks
An image cannot use any spells, extraordinary abilities, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities of the caster.
Special Qualities
The image has none of the special qualities of the caster. It acquires the following qualities:
Mimic Master: The image exactly matches the movements, gestures, and sounds of the caster. No amount of effort can tell the image apart from the real caster.
Swap Places: The caster of the spell can move through the image with no effort. To an observer it is not discernable which of the images is real during this process.
Abilities
As a construct, an image has no Constitution score. In addition, it has no Strength score and no Intelligence score.
Skills
An image cannot use any skills.
Feats
An image loses all the feats of the caster.
If a mirror image is reduced to 0 hit points, it shatters into small shards of glass.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
An interesting question with Mirror Image - how does it interact with Cleave and Great Cleave? At my table we've run it so that the Cleave/GC can drop multiple images until you eventually get to the caster.
On a technicality, Cleave/Great Cleave don't work on images, since the feat description stipulates reducing a "creature" to 0 hp - images being figments with no hit points don't qualify. By the same token, you couldn't attack an object (say, sundering someone's weapon) and then get a Cleave attack afterwards.
That said, this question came up some years ago in the campaign I was running and I ruled it was actually a great idea. GC is often hard to use anyway at higher levels, where you are often fighting larger/higher hp enemies and it's rare that GC will even come up.
Whirlwind Attack lets you attack "every opponent" within reach. Probably also a stretch of the rules as written, but one I think is perfectly sensible.
Now what GC and WA do against swarms and mobs... that's an interesting question in itself, but not really spell-related so I'll leave the musing at that.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'll try to organize these by topic rather than poster:
Detect Magic - I know you've stated you meant dispel, but detect magic (and related spells) do have a problem. They automatically detect most magical traps (because magical traps radiate magic). Its not too hard to figure out that glowing things on the wall are probably bad for you. And something glowing on the wall doesn't exactly need a perception check to notice (assuming standard conditions). This was a problem mostly post-permanency in 3.x, but with cantrips at-will you can just fire off a detect magic whenever you see a new stretch of dungeon.
Of course, this would be best fixed by some wording in a/the traps section rather than in the spell description (although the spell should possibly warn you that some magical auras can be hidden and will not be detected).
I'd agree here, though perhaps to put it in the spell description as well. Maybe it is simply an inherent property of magical traps that they are hard to detect (perhaps some sort of undetectable aura type of effect is part of the process). So, either:
1. Magical traps don't radiate magical auras (seems odd at first, but why give such an easily noticeable tell-tale clue in the construction)?
2. Say using detect magic gives you a flat +5 Perception bonus to notice magical traps and secret doors.
Of course, you could something similar about illusions - that it is kind of lame that they are so easily detectable as being simply magical. Aren't illusions supposed to be sneaky? Maybe an inherent trait of illusions is that they are hard to notice as such? I guess I'm thinking like the Shadow Weave Magic feat from FR.
Dispel Magic - if anything, its a little underpowered. I'd get rid of GDM and remove the CL cap on it. Or keep GDM but let it target every effect in an area dispel instead of stopping after the first dispelled effect (and remove the CL cap from both of them).
Another agree. DM is nice, but not so ludicrously awesome that it needs a low cap.
Since the only diff from DM to GDM is the higher cap, the PFRPG version of GDM could be:
1. Area dispel on EVERYTHING.
2. Auto-dispel on one target (sort of a single-target disjunction)
Or, the one I think I like best:
3. Multi-target personal dispel - This is pretty similar to what you've described, but rather than blanket coverage you get selective targeting, and what GDM really becomes is mass dispel magic.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
snip 'mirror image as construct' power
On a certain level I like it, and I think that I created a spell similar to this years ago in 1st Ed, when the standard MI tactic was to throw a handful of rocks at a bunch of MIs, and DMs would often let each pebble count as a 'hit' and poof them. The 1st Ed version didn't stipulate you had to DAMAGE them, so a looser interpretation was to hit them with anything.
I thought that was pretty lame. Then again, the AoE vs. MI question was alive and well then, too, so I made up a version where they had hit points and made saves and stuff.
The problem, as with this version, is that it is unnecessarily complex for a 2nd level spell. I was talking about this with a fellow DM and he compared implementing the as-written literal version of MI to a 3.0 Evard's black tentacles level of nightmarish ick for running at the table. Perhaps we're overstating the problem, but it just seems like running around in combat with 3-9 minis/tokens of yourself on the board is... perhaps not the most elegant design.
Here are a couple of notions, see what you think:
1) The spell is, after all, MIRROR image, not "shattered/fractured prism image" - so maybe at the beginning of your turn each round you pop out ONE image, your mirror duplicate, in any adjacent square and it moves with you (and no one knows which is the real you). It lasts 1 round or until popped. Each round your old image goes away and you spawn a new one.
2) Use the model of the mislead spell (but without making you invis) - it's a major image of you. When it appears, there's a blurring effect and it's identical and no one can tell which is the real one. It then does stuff as you direct it (we would still need to stipulate what kind of actions it takes you to control the image), any spells you cast seem to come from both of you, it can be disbelieved like any other illusion (including if you attack it), but it doesn't auto-pop. If you move it into your space (or move through it), you become indistinguishable again.
MI is a fun spell idea, but needs some kind of balance between goshawful complexity and goshawful awesomeness, and without it becoming a virtual clone of blur.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
So, I finally went ahead and actually read the PFRPG version of MI, which of course I should have done before I went into my long post about it (though it was a useful discussion with the DM in the STAP campaign I'm playing in, which is still on 3.5).
Turns out the PF Beta version clearly answers many of the questions, but their answers come out firmly on the side of MI is even more awesome. To wit:
1. The illusionary doubles inhabit your square. No worries about adjacent ones, or them moving separately, or having to move through them, or anything like that.
2. Images can be hit only by effects that require attack rolls.
3. Area effects and targeted spells that don't have attack rolls ignore and do not affect the images in any way.
4. Any attack against you is resolved against YOUR real AC first. If (and only if) the attack hits your full AC, THEN you roll randomly to see if you get hit or an image does (so your effective miss chance varies from 50% (2 images) to 89% (8 images), but it's not officially a miss chance so Blind-fight doesn't help).
5. If an attack misses you by 5 or less, it auto-pops an image.
This version is definitely more clearly written than the 3.5/SRD one, but also clearly better. Images are much harder to target, because they are based off of your full AC (-5 for a 'near miss' pop), and in fact as described you CAN'T actually target a bunch of images intentionally just to blow through them. The Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind Attack anti-image attacks wouldn't work to blow off images, and neither would a Rapid Shot/flurry of blows approach or anything of the sort. Swarms and mobs would not affect them either.
A classic anti-MI trick back to 1st Ed was magic missile, one missile per image. The PF version would not allow you to do that, although interestingly that's a slight backdoor weakness as a defense... MM now completely bypasses MI because it doesn't require an attack roll. That is very weird to me.
The PF version of MI, in my mind, is at least as good as displacement, with a much longer duration (minutes, not rounds), though with the obvious weakness of being subject to attrition. I would probably make it a 4th level spell as is.
In keeping with the focus of this thread, though, what would be a good resolution to make MI more suitable as a 2nd level spell?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Turns out the PF Beta version clearly answers many of the questions, but their answers come out firmly on the side of MI is even more awesome. To wit:
1. The illusionary doubles inhabit your square. No worries about adjacent ones, or them moving separately, or having to move through them, or anything like that.
2. Images can be hit only by effects that require attack rolls.
3. Area effects and targeted spells that don't have attack rolls ignore and do not affect the images in any way.
4. Any attack against you is resolved against YOUR real AC first. If (and only if) the attack hits your full AC, THEN you roll randomly to see if you get hit or an image does (so your effective miss chance varies from 50% (2 images) to 89% (8 images), but it's not officially a miss chance so Blind-fight doesn't help).
5. If an attack misses you by 5 or less, it auto-pops an image.
This version is definitely more clearly written than the 3.5/SRD one, but also clearly better. Images are much harder to target, because they are based off of your full AC (-5 for a 'near miss' pop), and in fact as described you CAN'T actually target a bunch of images intentionally just to blow through them. The Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind Attack anti-image attacks wouldn't work to blow off images, and neither would a Rapid Shot/flurry of blows approach or anything of the sort. Swarms and mobs would not affect them either.
A classic anti-MI trick back to 1st Ed was magic missile, one missile per image. The PF version would not allow you to do that, although interestingly that's a slight backdoor weakness as a defense... MM now completely bypasses MI because it doesn't require an attack roll. That is very weird to me.
The PF version of MI, in my mind, is at least as good as displacement, with a much longer duration (minutes, not rounds), though with the obvious weakness of being subject to attrition. I would probably make it a 4th level spell as is.
In keeping with the focus of this thread, though, what would be a good resolution to make MI more suitable as a 2nd level spell?
Actually, I think rapid shot/flurry of blows would work vs. MI in that you'd get an additional attack to pop images with, even though you couldn't specifically target different images.
As to how to lower the power level back towards 2nd level, I think the key is in #4 as you've outlined. Change it back to touch AC instead of using your normal AC, and determine chance of hitting image vs. real target first, so you know which AC to use.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
4. Any attack against you is resolved against YOUR real AC first. If (and only if) the attack hits your full AC, THEN you roll randomly to see if you get hit or an image does (so your effective miss chance varies from 50% (2 images) to 89% (8 images), but it's not officially a miss chance so Blind-fight doesn't help).5. If an attack misses you by 5 or less, it auto-pops an image.
This version is definitely more clearly written than the 3.5/SRD one, but also clearly better. Images are much harder to target, because they are based off of your full AC (-5 for a 'near miss' pop), and in fact as described you CAN'T actually target a bunch of images intentionally just to blow through them. The Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind Attack anti-image attacks wouldn't work to blow off images, and neither would a Rapid Shot/flurry of blows approach or anything of the sort. Swarms and mobs would not affect them either.
Actually, I think rapid shot/flurry of blows would work vs. MI in that you'd get an additional attack to pop images with, even though you couldn't specifically target different images.
As to how to lower the power level back towards 2nd level, I think the key is in #4 as you've outlined. Change it back to touch AC instead of using your normal AC, and determine chance of hitting image vs. real target first, so you know which AC to use.
RS/FoB would still work, but not as well, if only because the -2 to hit essentially didn't matter vs. 3.5 MI (cuz their AC sucked) but it does when you're attacking a spellcaster's buffed AC. More attacks is always good, but still (regular AC -5) is likely to be much higher than 10 + size + Dex (which is lower even than touch AC, and also the images would not benefit from most AC buffs because they are not creatures or even objects).
It might be better if we just lowered the number of images. Forget the 1d4. Make it 1 image per 3 levels (max 3 or maybe 4). This gets away from any empower-type cheats (probably a bad investment anyway, but still could make a disgusting spell even more so), and pushes the total effect of the spell back into the land of "not too grotesque).
I actually was just struck with a notion of what if MI actually worked the opposite way it does now: any time you get hit, you appear to 'fracture' into another mirror image, so that way, the more times you got hit the more fractional images of you there were (up to a certain cap, and the images would fade after a time).
It's kind of a backwards way to run the spell; no help at first (or maybe 1 image), but the more you get hit the better the defense gets. It's kind of a fun idea. I may have to think about it some more.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I actually was just struck with a notion of what if MI actually worked the opposite way it does now: any time you get hit, you appear to 'fracture' into another mirror image, so that way, the more times you got hit the more fractional images of you there were (up to a certain cap, and the images would fade after a time).
It's kind of a backwards way to run the spell; no help at first (or maybe 1 image), but the more you get hit the better the defense gets. It's kind of a fun idea. I may have to think about it some more.
I'd watch out for the "ally slaps me gently in the head 10 times and I drink a potion of CLW" exploit. Generally, I'd avoid any ability that is powered by the number of times you are hit for just this reason.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd watch out for the "ally slaps me gently in the head 10 times and I drink a potion of CLW" exploit. Generally, I'd avoid any ability that is powered by the number of times you are hit for just this reason.I actually was just struck with a notion of what if MI actually worked the opposite way it does now: any time you get hit, you appear to 'fracture' into another mirror image, so that way, the more times you got hit the more fractional images of you there were (up to a certain cap, and the images would fade after a time).
It's kind of a backwards way to run the spell; no help at first (or maybe 1 image), but the more you get hit the better the defense gets. It's kind of a fun idea. I may have to think about it some more.
It's true. It's a fun idea, but inherently pretty abuseable. You could limit it to attacks that inflicted lethal damage, but that wouldn't be enough.
Perhaps if the illusion were subjective, in the eye of the beholder as it were - the more times YOU hit the person with MI, the more images that YOU see. So, in the above case, your friend would now see the maximum number of images for the spell but the monster across the way would see nothing until IT hit you.
Still complicated, though, cuz now you gotta keep track of how many creatures see you with how many images.
So maybe the fix is this:
Rather than being a personal spell, MI becomes a targeted spell you cast on a creature, and the spell alters the perceptions of that creature (and only that one) sees the MIs. The spell could allow a save (Will disbelief) or it could have no save and just use the standard attrition mechanic.
This lets us keep the spell's mechanics pretty much as is (and the PF Beta version is certainly clear on a lot of points that are vague in other versions) while limiting the effect to one creature. In one-on-one battles, it would still be awesome (though it would be a mind-affecting effect, which would limit its effects), but in party-level fights with multiple opponents it is radically less so.
I think that's actually a pretty nice, simple fix.
|
|
Darn us for not reading the Beta. But we did suggest some of the fixes that Jason came up with already, I guess that makes us less idiotic, right? :)
Squirreloid is right about detect magic abusing magical traps (and other illusions). The only in-game solution right now is to cast magic aura on spell effects you want hidden in your adventures. But magic aura is a bit underpowered now compared to at-will detect magic.
Maybe detect magic should be changed to a touch spell, like identify? If you can do it at-will, it doesn't matter if you have to touch every piece of loot. But it does negate the abuse of the spell as trapfinder and for breaking higher-level spells like invisibility.
Incidentally, PRPG identify is now a cone, but the description suggests that you need to hold the item to gain the +10 Appraise bonus, otherwise it is just detect magic.
They should both go to touch spells.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Darn us for not reading the Beta. But we did suggest some of the fixes that Jason came up with already, I guess that makes us less idiotic, right? :)
Squirreloid is right about detect magic abusing magical traps (and other illusions). The only in-game solution right now is to cast magic aura on spell effects you want hidden in your adventures. But magic aura is a bit underpowered now compared to at-will detect magic.
Maybe detect magic should be changed to a touch spell, like identify? If you can do it at-will, it doesn't matter if you have to touch every piece of loot. But it does negate the abuse of the spell as trapfinder and for breaking higher-level spells like invisibility.
Incidentally, PRPG identify is now a cone, but the description suggests that you need to hold the item to gain the +10 Appraise bonus, otherwise it is just detect magic.
They should both go to touch spells.
That is actually a very simple and nice idea. I rather like it.
I understand it goes against the model of having all "detect" spells work alike (cones), but I think in the case of DM it makes good sense.
It makes it much harder to find the magic loot in someone's treasure hoard, but that's fine.
... think think think... ding!
The perfect solution! Instead of working like detect evil/undead/etc. (which are all 1st level spells), have DM work like a spell that is actually at its same power level, the 0-level cantrip/orison detect poison.
Close range, affects one creature, object, or 5' cube. It's instantaneous, so no need to be wandering around concentrating; it could just give you the full DM info-dump at once. You could still use it when examining a pile of treasure (5' cube version) to find the magic goodies. You could examine a specific item or take a look at a creature and see what they have going on. But you couldn't really use it to find something you didn't already know was there, at least not with any efficiency.
Thoughts?
|
|
The perfect solution! Instead of working like detect evil/undead/etc. (which are all 1st level spells), have DM work like a spell that is actually at its same power level, the 0-level cantrip/orison detect poison.
Close range, affects one creature, object, or 5' cube. It's instantaneous, so no need to be wandering around concentrating; it could just give you the full DM info-dump at once. You could still use it when examining a pile of treasure (5' cube version) to find the magic goodies. You could examine a specific item or take a look at a creature and see what they have going on. But you couldn't really use it to find something you didn't already know was there, at least not with any efficiency.
Thoughts?
I like it. A lot. The main use of Detect Magic in my games has been to figure out whether or not a piece of loot is magical.
I say model Detect Magic after Detect Poison, and then fully commit to the ambiguity of Identify's cone emanation; i.e. roll the traditional Detect Magic into Identify.
Giving all spellcasters at-will Detect Magic (radar sweep version) almost seems like it hedges in on the paladin's concept a little.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Here is a somewhat radical idea for a spell, and only thrown out for discussion because it has always been such a binary effect that causes a lot of odd cases for interaction, but:
What about altering the invisibility spell?
Some reasons:
1. In PF Beta, there is no longer a single Spot skill - there is Perception that involves all 5 senses. Invis takes care of sight, but not hearing, scent, or other signs in the air or on the ground as you move (footprints, dust clouds, rain, steam, condensation of water, stuff thrown at/on you). Thus, invis is a counter to some parts of perception but not others.
2. In literature, invis. is usually not an absolute trick. It typically makes you transparent, or just a shadow. Heck, even the One Ring granted invis that was subtotal - you could be seen dimly in bright light.
3. Yes, Invis is well-understood through years and years of play, but it still requires special rules and special counters specifically for itself (inv purge, see invis). Invis is itself a walking corner case.
So how about this: Rather than giving you the special condition "invisible," casting the invisibility spell grants a bonus to your Stealth skill. That way, it can integrate seamlessly into the rules as they already exist without having to have its own subsystem.
Say invisibility gives you a +2 bonus per caster level (max +20 at 10th). Just like with using Stealth, when you attack your position becomes obvious (though you could snipe with missile weapons). You can't re-hide until you find some place to conceal yourself or make a Bluff (but then your hiding is only vs. that target). Instead of special-case rules for when invis goes away and what constitutes an attack, etc., you just use the rules already in place for hiding and attacking.
Greater invisibility would have a higher cap (+30 at 15th) and could stay in place even if you attacked someone.
The anti-invis spells could:
1. Allow you to ignore Stealth bonuses provided by invis spells.
2. Grant a Perception bonus to checks to see invis creatures (+2/level, max +20 for see invis)
3. Penalize the Stealth checks provided by invis spells (IP, +2/level, max +20 for any invis creature in the AoE).
Thoughts?
Rather than giving you the special condition "invisible," casting the invisibility spell grants a bonus to your Stealth skill.
This seems to be part of a common theme from you, Jason.
I think that if many spells were tied to skills where it made sense to do so, that would benefit the game a great deal by bringing spellcasters down to the same level as everyone else.
I would love to see Charm report to Diplomacy, Cause fear report to intimidation, Invisibility to stealth. For one thing, takes some pressure off of saving throws, and it allows spellcasters to get into the skill and out of the exclusivity game. This is probably a good niche for lower level spells to fill, rather than going from no power to total power at low levels, a little bit of a gradient?
There might be great resistance to this sort of change, however. And it seems like a change made "for neatness" rather than to address a specific problem with gameplay.
It's funny that you call the Pathfinder version of Mirror Image "clearly better" -- I think it's clearly weaker. The most powerful ability of Mirror Image has always been the ability to avoid targeted spells and effects, in my opinion. For regular melee and ranged attacks, you can just close your eyes when you attack and turn it into a 50% miss chance (like Displacement); the miss chance is nice, but not as important as being untargetable.
So, I finally went ahead and actually read the PFRPG version of MI, which of course I should have done before I went into my long post about it (though it was a useful discussion with the DM in the STAP campaign I'm playing in, which is still on 3.5).
Turns out the PF Beta version clearly answers many of the questions, but their answers come out firmly on the side of MI is even more awesome. To wit:
1. The illusionary doubles inhabit your square. No worries about adjacent ones, or them moving separately, or having to move through them, or anything like that.
2. Images can be hit only by effects that require attack rolls.
3. Area effects and targeted spells that don't have attack rolls ignore and do not affect the images in any way.
4. Any attack against you is resolved against YOUR real AC first. If (and only if) the attack hits your full AC, THEN you roll randomly to see if you get hit or an image does (so your effective miss chance varies from 50% (2 images) to 89% (8 images), but it's not officially a miss chance so Blind-fight doesn't help).
5. If an attack misses you by 5 or less, it auto-pops an image.
This version is definitely more clearly written than the 3.5/SRD one, but also clearly better. Images are much harder to target, because they are based off of your full AC (-5 for a 'near miss' pop), and in fact as described you CAN'T actually target a bunch of images intentionally just to blow through them. The Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind Attack anti-image attacks wouldn't work to blow off images, and neither would a Rapid Shot/flurry of blows approach or anything of the sort. Swarms and mobs would not affect them either.
A classic anti-MI trick back to 1st Ed was magic missile, one missile per image. The PF version would not allow you to do that, although interestingly that's a slight backdoor weakness as a defense... MM now completely bypasses MI because it doesn't require an attack roll. That is very weird to me.
The PF version of MI, in my mind, is at...
I don't know, i think it would address some specific problems of gameplay. For example, rather than wasting time explaining a separate system of interaction specifically for charm spells, some more detail could be given the diplomacy skill and Charm Person (et al) could just allow you to make a diplomacy check in 1 round with some sort of bonus. As it stands, neither diplomacy or Charm Person are completely clear on what they allow you to achieve, and while there will never be enough space to perfectly define one or the other, using the current space to explain one system rather than two would be vastly preferable.
Similarly the other instances. Many of these systems are already vaguely defined, so more attention to the workings of these systems would be appreciated.
And stopping the 'spells trump skills' nonsense would also help make skillful characters more interesting and more appealing.
Well I think the section in the glossary is pretty clear but I also like the idea of consolidating effects into skills.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Well I think the section in the glossary is pretty clear but I also like the idea of consolidating effects into skills.I don't know, i think it would address some specific problems of gameplay. For example, rather than wasting time explaining a separate system of interaction specifically for charm spells, some more detail could be given the diplomacy skill and Charm Person (et al) could just allow you to make a diplomacy check in 1 round with some sort of bonus. As it stands, neither diplomacy or Charm Person are completely clear on what they allow you to achieve, and while there will never be enough space to perfectly define one or the other, using the current space to explain one system rather than two would be vastly preferable.
Similarly the other instances. Many of these systems are already vaguely defined, so more attention to the workings of these systems would be appreciated.
And stopping the 'spells trump skills' nonsense would also help make skillful characters more interesting and more appealing.
The PF Beta glossary does answer a lot of questions about charm, but the point about system redundancy is a good thing I think. In books with limited space, consolidation of systems is a plus, especially if in the process we scoop up the added benefit of undermining the "spells uber skills" paradigm.
PF Beta has already done this with knock, more or less. You make a ranged CLC with a +10 bonus vs. the lock's DC. So, at 3rd level, a mage casts knock with essentially a +13 Disable Device check (but you can't take 10).
A presumptive rogue with 18 Dex, 6 ranks of DD, and MW tools would have a +12.
The spell has the advantage of being faster (standard action vs. full-round) and ranged, and can temporarily suppress an arcane lock.
The rogue has the advantage of being able to do it all day long, it costing virtually no resources (one set of MW tools, and some skill points), and being able to use the skill vs. traps.
A nice improvement vs. old-school "I win vs. locked doors" versions of knock.