Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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.
Interesting. I don't think I've seen MI run that way, now that I think of it. It's an odd sort of corner case, but for non-physical spells I think the way it's always rolled is that, since you could see the actual person, even if you didn't know which was which, you could still cast a targeted spell at them, much like how displacement works. In both cases you are casting at a spot close to the caster that isn't really them - your eye is tricked by the illusion - but the magical effect was close enough to them that it found its way to the actual target.
There isn't really any rules text to support this - in fact now that you mention it the PH says "enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." Of course, then it confuses the issue by saying "Generally, roll randomly... " But doesn't say when that general condition should or shouldn't apply. Bleah.
You're right on that score then. I was presumably playing with older edition leakage with similar-minded grognards about how MI worked. I certainly have never played (or even seen it played) how it seems to work RAW in the SRD/PH.
So it would seem that PF MI is better vs. attacks, but less good against spells. Which is even more whacked in the "caster vs. non-caster" fault line - casters already have other countermeasures vs. MI, but they don't need to use them because the spell already leaves them an open back door. Double bleah!
There isn't really any rules text to support this - in fact now that you mention it the PH says "enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." Of course, then it confuses the issue by saying "Generally, roll randomly... " But doesn't say when that general condition should or shouldn't apply. Bleah.
The 3.5 FAQ clarifies that even a touch spell is discharged when it hits an image (which makes about zero sense to me).
So it would seem that PF MI is better vs. attacks, but less good against spells. Which is even more whacked in the "caster vs. non-caster" fault line - casters already have other countermeasures vs. MI, but they don't need to use them because the spell already leaves them an open back door. Double bleah!
Huh? It's worse vs. melee attacks, too:
3.5 Mirror Image -- If you target an image, it is destroyed if you hit it. If you target the wizard, resolve the attack normally and no image is destroyed.
Pathfinder Mirror Image -- If you target an image, it is automatically destroyed (no attack roll required). If you target the wizard, resolve the attack normally; if you hit, no image is destroyed, but a "near-miss" destroys an image.
Strictly worse. Plus it countermands any possible malarkey about an invisible wizard having invisible mirror images (which makes about zero sense yet again).
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).
My opinion, for what it's worth: to save space and add detail, spells should report to skills wherever possible. However, spells should always include some kind of extra deal, to keep them from being "just a skill bonus" — allowing faster-than-reasonable diplomacy checks, or opening locks at range or without a penalty for no tools, etc.
For instance, I wouldn't want to see knock diminished to "a spell that gives you a disable device bonus". But by the same token, I think it would be really cool if wizards who also knew how to pick locks could cast more effective Knock spells.
We must be careful not to overdo it though, or Scry will be Perception checks with +20 uninhibited by distance and cover.
...wait a minute, that sounds pretty good. :/
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
There isn't really any rules text to support this - in fact now that you mention it the PH says "enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets." Of course, then it confuses the issue by saying "Generally, roll randomly... " But doesn't say when that general condition should or shouldn't apply. Bleah.The 3.5 FAQ clarifies that even a touch spell is discharged when it hits an image (which makes about zero sense to me).
So it would seem that PF MI is better vs. attacks, but less good against spells. Which is even more whacked in the "caster vs. non-caster" fault line - casters already have other countermeasures vs. MI, but they don't need to use them because the spell already leaves them an open back door. Double bleah!Huh? It's worse vs. melee attacks, too:
3.5 Mirror Image -- If you target an image, it is destroyed if you hit it. If you target the wizard, resolve the attack normally and no image is destroyed.
Pathfinder Mirror Image -- If you target an image, it is automatically destroyed (no attack roll required).
Actually, no. PF MI: "If the attack is a hit, roll randmoly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment." (sentence 4, paragraph 2, p. 251)
If you target the wizard, resolve the attack normally; if you hit, no image is destroyed, but a "near-miss" destroys an image.
PF MI doesn't let you target images at all. You can only target the caster, and if you hit the caster you roll randomly to see if it's image or real.
Your possible results are:
1. Hit caster's full AC: Random chance to hit target or image.
2. Miss caster's full AC by 1 to 5: Auto-hit an image.
3. Miss caster's full AC by 6 or more: Hit nothing.
My argument for why PF MI is better vs. melee is based on:
1. SRD MI gives your images a very weak AC (10 + size + Dex, that's it), and as illusions they cannot benefit from AC buffs (unless it's an AoE AC buffer, like say MCvE). Therefore, in the likely event that you attack and hit an image, you will almost always hit. This allows you to take advantage tactically with things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, flurry of blows, Rapid Shot, fighting defensively, etc. - the fact that you take a penalty to hit is almost immaterial, since you are statistically unlikely to get a shot in on the real caster. You assume most/all of your attacks will be image poppers and you enjoy the fringe benefits of your tactic for a round or two while you grind through the images.
PF MI doesn't allow you to do that because every attack has to hit at (or close to) the mage's full buffed AC. At low levels, the difference isn't that significant because most of a mage's or bard's AC will be Dex + chain shirt (bard) or mage armor (sor/wiz). As soon as magical equipment and defensive buffing spells come into the picture, the PF MI version zooms ahead because all of a sudden even your images are very hard to hit. The SRD AC for your images is basically static, other than boosting your DEX score or magic that changes your size.
Step outside the realm of low-level wizard for a second and I'll show you what I mean:
Take an adult blue dragon, which casts spells as a Sor5. It casts MI on itself.
a. SRD MI: To pop an image, you need to hit AC 8 (10, -2 size, +0 Dex)
b. PF MI: To pop an image, you need to hit AC 23 (base AC -5), assuming that the dragon has absolutely no other AC-boosting spells in effect.
Let's say our defensive-minded dragon also casts mage armor and shield:
a. SRD MI: Images are still AC 8.
b. PF MI: Images are now AC 31.
Also, as a side effect, shield would not protect the images of the SRD MI from magic missile, because only the REAL you actually has the spell going; the other images just look like they have one. The PF MI, however, only allows targeted spells to target YOU, so the MMs would get directed to the real you (and blocked by the shield) and your images would be unaffected.
Say we make it a Great Wyrm blue dragon, just using those same 3 1st/2nd level spells and no other defenses apropriate to a CR 25 creature.
a. SRD MI: Images are AC 6 (-4 size, +0 Dex)
b. PF MI: Images are now AC 47
I'll stand by my argument that the SRD MIs are easier to destroy than the PF MIs.
2. SRD MI enables you to intentionally target multiple images simultaneously, allowing a spell like magic missile to zap a bunch of images at once, or a character with multiple attacks (including things like Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind Attack) to separately attack a number of images with the express intention of popping images.
Again, these tactics don't work vs. PF MI.
Strictly worse. Plus it countermands any possible malarkey about an invisible wizard having invisible mirror images (which makes about zero sense yet again).
While invisible MIs seem nutty on the face of it, they actually make perfect sense vs. foes who can see invisibility. Creatures who can't see you by definition can't see the images either. Creatures who can, can.
They also make sense as a precast defensive spell along with regular inv, so that when you attack and become visible, the images are already going. While you were invis, they were invis; now that you are visible, they are visible.
Actually, no. PF MI: "If the attack is a hit, roll randmoly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment." (sentence 4, paragraph 2, p. 251)
Ah...I misread it. Oops! I was confused by the wording "Whenever you are attacked [..] there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead".
My argument for why PF MI is better vs. melee is based on:
[summary: If the caster has a high AC, the images won't be hit either. Also, Cleave don't work against images any more.]
I guess I look at it a different way. If your caster's AC is so high that it's hard to hit him anyways, then Mirror Image doesn't help that much (it turns "very hard to hit" into "very, very hard to hit"). So it's better vs. normal attacks, but not that much better. YMMV.
While invisible MIs seem nutty on the face of it, they actually make perfect sense vs. foes who can see invisibility. Creatures who can't see you by definition can't see the images either. Creatures who can, can.
I understand the argument, I just think it's silly (and cheesy) to create a visual illusion of something invisible. YMMV, again.
In the name of all that is happy and conversational, I hereby beg you all not to continue on Mirror Image! The fix is already in, it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, start a thread about it, it's important to give feedback on the changes!
Moving on... How about some divine spells? Are they not also needing attention?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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).My opinion, for what it's worth: to save space and add detail, spells should report to skills wherever possible. However, spells should always include some kind of extra deal, to keep them from being "just a skill bonus" — allowing faster-than-reasonable diplomacy checks, or opening locks at range or without a penalty for no tools, etc.
For instance, I wouldn't want to see knock diminished to "a spell that gives you a disable device bonus". But by the same token, I think it would be really cool if wizards who also knew how to pick locks could cast more effective Knock spells.
We must be careful not to overdo it though, or Scry will be Perception checks with +20 uninhibited by distance and cover.
...wait a minute, that sounds pretty good. :/
It's an interesting question; should such "skill spells" allow you to:
1. Get a boost to a skill you already have (as the jump or glibness spells do)?
OR
2. Allow you to emulate a skill with a CLC (as the knock spell in PF Beta does)?
I can see arguments for both ways, but actually I think I prefer the latter. It lets a caster be pretty good at a skill, but only about as good as a highly skilled person in that area. If they stack (I'm skilled AND I get a big bonus), then you start getting super-high numbers.
There are lots of spells where we could use this model:
Charm person lets you make a CLC with a +10 bonus vs. the DC to adjust the attitude of a humanoid. (bonus effect: making the check is a standard action)
Charm monster does the same vs. a monster. (bonus effect: making the check is a standard action)
Knock does the same vs. the DC to open a lock. (bonus effect: you can do it at range and you don't need tools)
Doom does the same vs. the DC to demoralize an opponent (Intimidate). (bonus effect, you can do it at spell range rather than melee/30')
Identify does the same vs. the DC to ID a magical item or effect. (bonus effect: the spell lasts multiple rounds, so you can check multiple effects)
Comprehend languages does the same vs. the DC to read an unknown language (Linguistics) (bonus effect: you can also touch a creature and understand its speech)
Detect secret doors does the same vs. the DC (Perception) to notice secret/hidden doors. (bonus effect: lasts for multiple rounds, so you can concentrate and use it)
Find traps does the same vs. the DC (Perception) to notice traps. (bonus effect: grants trapfinding as a rogue, so you can notice even DC 20+ traps)
There are plenty more...
Perhaps the central mechanic should be Caster Level Check + Skill ranks?
In other words, these spells allow you to add your CL plus relevant CLC modifiers to a skill check? Plus some other effect or elevation of ability that cannot be so quantified.
For example: Invisibility could add your Caster level to Stealth rolls, in addition to granting a miss chance. A Rogue-Sorcerer will get more mileage out of the spell than a straight up Wizard.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Perhaps the central mechanic should be Caster Level Check + Skill ranks?
In other words, these spells allow you to add your CL plus relevant CLC modifiers to a skill check? Plus some other effect or elevation of ability that cannot be so quantified.
For example: Invisibility could add your Caster level to Stealth rolls, in addition to granting a miss chance. A Rogue-Sorcerer will get more mileage out of the spell than a straight up Wizard.
I'm pondering that concept, but I bolded one note above - which CLC modifiers are we talking about?
There aren't really too many in the game. Orange ioun stone. A few prestige classes (Sacred Exorcist from Complete Divine comes to mind). SpellPen is only a CLC booster vs. SR. Practiced Spellcaster (CompDiv/Arc) is a catch-up on caster level for multiclassers but not exactly a bonus.
I'm a little leery of just making it a flat skill bonus, because then stacking is invoked and big numbers start flying.
Perhaps a mechanic like this. When casting a "skill spell," you can:
1. Cast it as a swift action right when you are about to make a skill check to add a flat +5 competence bonus to your normal skill check.
OR
2. Cast it as a standard action to substitute your CLC+10 check for a normal skill check (and get your special effect, if the spell has one).
1. Cast it as a swift action right when you are about to make a skill check to add a flat +5 competence bonus to your normal skill check.OR
2. Cast it as a standard action to substitute your CLC+10 check for a normal skill check (and get your special effect, if the spell has one).
Hm. Couldn't we do something... simpler? Just leave out the CLC modifiers?
The problem is that this nerfs a lot of spells pretty severely. Whether that's *too* severely is a matter of interpretation, but going from invisibility to a stealth bonus is nerfing— making that stealth bonus a +3 at Caster level 3 is really and truly nerfing it.
However, the best point still holds. You can cut down the text of the invisibility spell drastically and expand the Stealth and Perception skills to cover it. That just seems like a good idea.
If you're going to make the bonus on CLC check worthwhile, why not just drop the roll and go with a flat bonus + a magic prize? You're already burning a spell slot, which used to get you automatic total invisibility... risking rolling a 1 on that CLC is sort of mean.
Probably shouldn't use the CLC at all.
Going from absolute invisibility to invisibility that scales with Caster Level seems to strain credulity. We should be looking at a flat bonus to the skill. Invisibility = +20 Stealth (vs. Vision) and a miss chance. Charm = +20 Diplomacy and rushed checks.
This will more or less duplication the "absolute" feel of the spells as they are, but allows for some variation in interpreting them as applied skills. And if you have ranks in it, more's the better.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
1. Cast it as a swift action right when you are about to make a skill check to add a flat +5 competence bonus to your normal skill check.OR
2. Cast it as a standard action to substitute your CLC+10 check for a normal skill check (and get your special effect, if the spell has one).
Hm. Couldn't we do something... simpler? Just leave out the CLC modifiers?
The problem is that this nerfs a lot of spells pretty severely. Whether that's *too* severely is a matter of interpretation, but going from invisibility to a stealth bonus is nerfing— making that stealth bonus a +3 at Caster level 3 is really and truly nerfing it.
However, the best point still holds. You can cut down the text of the invisibility spell drastically and expand the Stealth and Perception skills to cover it. That just seems like a good idea.
If you're going to make the bonus on CLC check worthwhile, why not just drop the roll and go with a flat bonus + a magic prize? You're already burning a spell slot, which used to get you automatic total invisibility... risking rolling a 1 on that CLC is sort of mean.
At the risk of sounding sort of mean... boo and hoo! :)
What it "used to get you," those kinds of "absolute effects," are precisely the reason this thread exists, because a lot of things that were cheaply available were ridiculously good, and for that matter a lot of those cheap + awesome things were precisely what fueled the "casters uber non-casters" situation, because the casters had absolutes and the non-casters didn't.
I actually like the CLC mechanic for these kinds of spells for lots of reasons, but one is that it ties spell power to caster level, and if anything I don't think it strains credulity; I think it makes perfect logical sense.
You're an apprentice who just learned the inviso-trick? Guess what, your invis isn't quite as perfect as Mr. Archmage who's been using the spell for years. You still show up as a bit of a blur, a shadow, or you forgot to make your shoes disappear (whatever flavor text you want to put on it), where the experienced guy has honed his spell to perfection to where it doesn't just last longer, it works BETTER.
We accept the logic for fireball, why not for invisibility?
The idea of adding the alternative use, to gain a flat bonus to a skill check you're already making, really serves this purpose: To make the spell more useful to bards and multiclassers and other PCs (which, of course, could also include sor/wiz PCs) who have good skills and supporting stats.
If you're a bard with a high Dip and a good Charisma, you could use CP to just buff up the shine a little bit; your CLC might not be as good as your regular Dip check, so without that provision you would only use the spell if you were in a hurry (that is, what you needed was the 'special effect').
If, on the other hand, you are a wizard with a low CHA and no Dip, you'd use CP to engage the power of your magic and make people think you are Prince Charming, if only temporarily.
My point is that you wouldn't want to give a big bonus to skill checks, because skills already have their own boosters, and it seems like a place where uber-stacking is likely. YMMV.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In the name of all that is happy and conversational, I hereby beg you all not to continue on Mirror Image! The fix is already in, it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, start a thread about it, it's important to give feedback on the changes!
Moving on... How about some divine spells? Are they not also needing attention?
One thing I've always wanted to see in the divine spell land was a differentiation of heal and restoration - that is to say, I would like them to be exclusive of one another in what they fix.
Restoration = ability damage, ability drain, negative levels, exhaustion, fatigue, insanity, confusion, and "mental effects" (which would presumably include dazed and feebleminded)
Heal = hit points and all the other conditions
There is already some differentiation; heal doesn't cure neg levels or ability drain. Still, there is overlap and I'd rather some other spells besides heal got some love. I would rather see all of the restoration effects stay in the restoration tree.
It's not like heal doesn't do enough already. Come on, it would still insta-cure:
Blinded
Dazzled
Deafened
Diseased
Nauseated
Sickened
Stunned
Poisoned
And, of course, 10 hp/lvl (max 150).
I think that's quite sufficient, don't you?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
One other divine spell that could use some up-juice, might be this one: regenerate.
It's always been a bit of a wonky spell, because it's specifically in the game to deal with something that very rarely happens - limb loss. It was more common back in 1st ed, with the sword of sharpness and staff of withering floating around the game, but nowadays it seems a little pointless, given that limb loss is almost a nonesuch.
Add to that the fact that it takes 3 full rounds to cast, so you can't really even use it in combat like you can heal, which is lower level, nor can you use it offensively vs. undead. The only reason it exists is to fill a game-specific niche that is excluded from heal.
So how about this, given that it is higher level than heal anyway:
Make regenerate heal all physical damage (lethal and nonlethal).
Basically, the spell makes you physically fine. It doesn't remove any conditions (aside from fatigued/exhausted), but it fixes all of your physical injuries, even including limb loss. Heck, we could throw in that it heals any ability damage or drain to your physical stats.
Thoughts?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
One other divine spell that could use some up-juice, might be this one: regenerate.
It's always been a bit of a wonky spell, because it's specifically in the game to deal with something that very rarely happens - limb loss. It was more common back in 1st ed, with the sword of sharpness and staff of withering floating around the game, but nowadays it seems a little pointless, given that limb loss is almost a nonesuch.
I'd rather see the return of the sword of sharpness, staff of withering, and other nasty effects from magic, monster special abilities or traps, that would make the regenerate spell as written become more useful.
|
|
This came up in another thread:
Mending says it cannot repair broken (reduced to 0 hp or less) magic items.
The broken condition is only applied to damaged items above 0 hit points.
The Sunder CMB says if you damage an item it is broken and if it is reduced to 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it.
So it appears a small snag in terminology is present in the mending spell. It should read "it cannot repair destroyed (reduced to 0 hp or less) magic items."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd rather see the return of the sword of sharpness, staff of withering, and other nasty effects from magic, monster special abilities or traps, that would make the regenerate spell as written become more useful.One other divine spell that could use some up-juice, might be this one: regenerate.
It's always been a bit of a wonky spell, because it's specifically in the game to deal with something that very rarely happens - limb loss. It was more common back in 1st ed, with the sword of sharpness and staff of withering floating around the game, but nowadays it seems a little pointless, given that limb loss is almost a nonesuch.
I'd vote for a both/and!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
This came up in another thread:
Mending says it cannot repair broken (reduced to 0 hp or less) magic items.
The broken condition is only applied to damaged items above 0 hit points.
The Sunder CMB says if you damage an item it is broken and if it is reduced to 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it.
So it appears a small snag in terminology is present in the mending spell. It should read "it cannot repair destroyed (reduced to 0 hp or less) magic items."
I saw that discussion.
That would be a good spot to clarify the language. What is "broken" (damaged but above 0 hp) and what is "destroyed" (0 hp or less) - or just to make sure the language in each section of the book agrees. In this case, Sunder (p. 151) using "broken" as a condition with positive hp left, destroyed with 0; the mending and Make Whole descriptions saying "broken (0 hp or less"), and the section on damaging objects saying that "Objects that take damage gain the broken cnodition. When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined" (p. 128).
Broken?
Destroyed?
Ruined?
Really, the "broken" description in the glossary should be enough (p. 399), but maybe there needs to be a line for the "ruined" condition: "The item is completely destroyed, reduced to valueless bits."
|
|
Agreed. Really that discussion came down to one person not reading all the rules (the only reason I read them is that they came up in my playtest).
I agree, the ruined or destroyed condition needs to be in the Glossary. That and rewording the spell to not use a rule term as a descriptor would solve the issue.
Also, is it necessary to discuss if an item goes "below 0 hit points"? Items are like constructs or undead - they should go to 0 and done.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Agreed. Really that discussion came down to one person not reading all the rules (the only reason I read them is that they came up in my playtest).
I agree, the ruined or destroyed condition needs to be in the Glossary. That and rewording the spell to not use a rule term as a descriptor would solve the issue.
Also, is it necessary to discuss if an item goes "below 0 hit points"? Items are like constructs or undead - they should go to 0 and done.
You'd think so, but this would also be the simple piece of rule text that closes the infamous wall of iron loophole. Attempting to remove pieces of the WoI to sell or use for crafting must be done by attacking the object; reducing it to 0 hit points gives it the ruined condition (i.e., valueless bits). Ipso facto, you can't sell a Wall of Iron.
|
|
You'd think so, but this would also be the simple piece of rule text that closes the infamous wall of iron loophole. Attempting to remove pieces of the WoI to sell or use for crafting must be done by attacking the object; reducing it to 0 hit points gives it the ruined condition (i.e., valueless bits). Ipso facto, you can't sell a Wall of Iron.Agreed. Really that discussion came down to one person not reading all the rules (the only reason I read them is that they came up in my playtest).
I agree, the ruined or destroyed condition needs to be in the Glossary. That and rewording the spell to not use a rule term as a descriptor would solve the issue.
Also, is it necessary to discuss if an item goes "below 0 hit points"? Items are like constructs or undead - they should go to 0 and done.
A bit of miscommunication? What I was saying is that if an item is ruined at 0 hit points, why bother mentioning if it is reduced to -1 or lower?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
A bit of miscommunication? What I was saying is that if an item is ruined at 0 hit points, why bother mentioning if it is reduced to -1 or lower?You'd think so, but this would also be the simple piece of rule text that closes the infamous wall of iron loophole. Attempting to remove pieces of the WoI to sell or use for crafting must be done by attacking the object; reducing it to 0 hit points gives it the ruined condition (i.e., valueless bits). Ipso facto, you can't sell a Wall of Iron.Agreed. Really that discussion came down to one person not reading all the rules (the only reason I read them is that they came up in my playtest).
I agree, the ruined or destroyed condition needs to be in the Glossary. That and rewording the spell to not use a rule term as a descriptor would solve the issue.
Also, is it necessary to discuss if an item goes "below 0 hit points"? Items are like constructs or undead - they should go to 0 and done.
It would seem obvious enough, but these boards are ample evidence that:
a. Obvious to one never is to another; and,
b. Rules stashed in different places (like this broken/ruined thing, in 3 places in the rulebook) that in theory would clarify misunderstandings have a tendency to get missed.
Which comes back to the whole bit about "skill spells" - it centralizes "what you can do" in one place instead of fishing for specifics of different (but similar in effect) subsystems.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Moving on to the next spell concept, in the interest of putting the kibosh on the whole "scry and die" strategy, which is the enemy of fun everywhere, just as much for the DM when players do it as for the players when DMs do it, consider this idea:
What if the [teleportation] subschool had a stipulation that all creatures using any [teleportation] effect were disoriented and unable to act for 1 round after arrival. In essence, it's applying the dimension door rule (for the caster) to any and all teleports.
You could also stipulate that teleportation has a distinctive signature (popping sound, flash of light, puff of brimstone smoke, whatever) that alerts any creature in the vicinity to the arrival of a teleporter. Sure, you can be invisible, and you can be silent, but the TP arrival has a prodrome that precedes your actual arrival (i.e., before you get there and your spells take effect).
Sure, you can scry on the monster, spell up, and teleport into its lair, but you will be sitting ducks for a round. Best of luck.
Honestly, what are teleports really for? Escape and transportation. We could argue whether the game needs them, or whether the game would be better without them (consider a 4th Ed idea, wherein teleport in the classic sense is now a 'ritual' and monsters that used to have TP abilities now just have TP as a form of movement), but for backwards compatibility we need to have something to fill in those TP slots.
With one simple stroke of the pen, you excise an unpleasant application of the spell (the scry and die ambush) that pretty much boils down to how much of a jerk the PCs and the DM want to be.
Thoughts?
in the interest of putting the kibosh on the whole "scry and die" strategy... what if the [teleportation] subschool had a stipulation that all creatures using any [teleportation] effect were disoriented and unable to act for 1 round after arrival. In essence, it's applying the dimension door rule (for the caster) to any and all teleports.
Wasn't there some edition or other in which it was spelled out that this was actually the case? Maybe 2nd... or maybe I'm on crack again. In any case, it always seemed logical to me that it would take a round or so to recover from a teleport (maybe you'd be flat-footed and not get to take actions, but not helpless). And we'd need to clarify the language sufficiently that blink doesn't accidentally get covered!
Moving on to the next spell concept, in the interest of putting the kibosh on the whole "scry and die" strategy, which is the enemy of fun everywhere, just as much for the DM when players do it as for the players when DMs do it, consider this idea:
Thoughts?
My house rule is that scrying doesn't count as familiarity for purposes of teleporting. It still allows scrying and dying if you scout out the teleport location in person beforehand, though.
|
|
Moving on to the next spell concept, in the interest of putting the kibosh on the whole "scry and die" strategy, which is the enemy of fun everywhere, just as much for the DM when players do it as for the players when DMs do it, consider this idea:
What if the [teleportation] subschool had a stipulation that all creatures using any [teleportation] effect were disoriented and unable to act for 1 round after arrival. In essence, it's applying the dimension door rule (for the caster) to any and all teleports.
You could also stipulate that teleportation has a distinctive signature (popping sound, flash of light, puff of brimstone smoke, whatever) that alerts any creature in the vicinity to the arrival of a teleporter. Sure, you can be invisible, and you can be silent, but the TP arrival has a prodrome that precedes your actual arrival (i.e., before you get there and your spells take effect).
Sure, you can scry on the monster, spell up, and teleport into its lair, but you will be sitting ducks for a round. Best of luck.
Honestly, what are teleports really for? Escape and transportation. We could argue whether the game needs them, or whether the game would be better without them (consider a 4th Ed idea, wherein teleport in the classic sense is now a 'ritual' and monsters that used to have TP abilities now just have TP as a form of movement), but for backwards compatibility we need to have something to fill in those TP slots.
With one simple stroke of the pen, you excise an unpleasant application of the spell (the scry and die ambush) that pretty much boils down to how much of a jerk the PCs and the DM want to be.
Thoughts?
I can't remember if I mentioned this before, but here is a rule I use in home games for certain spells.
1. scrying - the mirror used for this spell must be at least 5x5 feet in size.
2. teleport - chance of failure for all casters unless you have attuned a teleportation circle, which costs 5,000gp to craft and 1 day to attune.
3. gate - caster must possess a ring made of special materials worth 5,000gp pe 5 feet in diameter. To call a creature requires the gate diameter to be the same size, or larger than, the creature being called.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I actually liked Frank + K's thoughts on this - that 40' of stone (or less of some other materials) completely blocks both scry and teleport. This also gave dungeons a reason to exist, which makes it elegant.Moving on to the next spell concept, in the interest of putting the kibosh on the whole "scry and die" strategy, which is the enemy of fun everywhere, just as much for the DM when players do it as for the players when DMs do it, consider this idea:
What if the [teleportation] subschool had a stipulation that all creatures using any [teleportation] effect were disoriented and unable to act for 1 round after arrival. In essence, it's applying the dimension door rule (for the caster) to any and all teleports.
You could also stipulate that teleportation has a distinctive signature (popping sound, flash of light, puff of brimstone smoke, whatever) that alerts any creature in the vicinity to the arrival of a teleporter. Sure, you can be invisible, and you can be silent, but the TP arrival has a prodrome that precedes your actual arrival (i.e., before you get there and your spells take effect).
Sure, you can scry on the monster, spell up, and teleport into its lair, but you will be sitting ducks for a round. Best of luck.
Honestly, what are teleports really for? Escape and transportation. We could argue whether the game needs them, or whether the game would be better without them (consider a 4th Ed idea, wherein teleport in the classic sense is now a 'ritual' and monsters that used to have TP abilities now just have TP as a form of movement), but for backwards compatibility we need to have something to fill in those TP slots.
With one simple stroke of the pen, you excise an unpleasant application of the spell (the scry and die ambush) that pretty much boils down to how much of a jerk the PCs and the DM want to be.
Thoughts?
I like it. It is, in fact, simple and elegant, AND gives dungeons a reason to exist in such profusion. I might even make it less than 40'. Maybe 10 or 20. Given that most stone walls are only a foot thick, this still leaves most of the world's buildings open to inspection and intrusion.
You could still SaD ambush someone outdoors, so I think a fix on that side still would be good.
|
|
I like it. It is, in fact, simple and elegant, AND gives dungeons a reason to exist in...
I actually liked Frank + K's thoughts on this - that 40' of stone (or less of some other materials) completely blocks both scry and teleport. This also gave dungeons a reason to exist, which makes it elegant.
I do like the simplicity, but the problem is it eliminates teleport as an escape method for NPCs and PCs alike - in essence, many crazy wizards would be building their own tomb.
I'm not a big fan of totally nerfing teleport underground... in particular since the current adventure I'm DMing is underground. I'm curious if you have read the current blog entry?
Blightburn is highly radioactive and emanates a nonmagical aura that provides a dim illumination equal to a candle. This emanation can be blocked by stone of at least 1-foot thickness or lead sheathing, as well as by force effects. Contact with blightburn causes immediate pain, blistering of skin, and 2d6 points of fire damage per round. In addition, the radiation poisons anyone within 60 feet with blightburn, a deadly disease (Fort DC 22, Incubation instantaneous, 1d6 Con/1d6 Cha); victims of this sickness grow increasingly frail as sores erupt on their bodies, hair falls out, and bones grow shockingly brittle.
Teleportation spells function poorly in areas where blightburn is present—in order to successfully cast such a spell in a cavern that has blightburn crystals in its walls or to teleport to such a location, a spellcaster must succeed on a DC 30 caster level check.
This is obviously a situational fix but just the awareness that such a thing exists might make some players hesitate to try Buff/ Scry/ Teleport/ Kill. There is also a feat in the Campaign Setting "Teleport Sense" which allows a character to detect an incoming teleport and react to it. Not too much help since this is all none-core material, just thought it was interesting in light of the discussion.
In a previous thread someone suggested the following simple suggestion which will partly fix the issue.
Teleportation requires an expensive material component which must be expended on casting unless the party is teleporting to an established teleportation target location which must be crafted or commissioned. This would make teleport a good "Get TF Out" spell but not so good for returning.
I also like the suggestion that scrying a location should not make it familiar for the purpose of teleportation. The caster should have to spend 10 minutes at the location doing nothing other than attuning themselves to the location before they can teleport to a location.
Personally, one of these two ideas would fix 99% of the abuse.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm not a big fan of totally nerfing teleport underground... in particular since the current adventure I'm DMing is underground. I'm curious if you have read the current blog entry?
Blightburn is highly radioactive and emanates a nonmagical aura that provides a dim illumination equal to a candle. This emanation can be blocked by stone of at least 1-foot thickness or lead sheathing, as well as by force effects. Contact with blightburn causes immediate pain, blistering of skin, and 2d6 points of fire damage per round. In addition, the radiation poisons anyone within 60 feet with blightburn, a deadly disease (Fort DC 22, Incubation instantaneous, 1d6 Con/1d6 Cha); victims of this sickness grow increasingly frail as sores erupt on their bodies, hair falls out, and bones grow shockingly brittle.
Teleportation spells function poorly in areas where blightburn is present—in order to successfully cast such a spell in a cavern that has blightburn crystals in its walls or to teleport to such a location, a spellcaster must succeed on a DC 30 caster level check.
This is very 1st-Ed, very D-series. A classic nerf updated for 3.5.
This is obviously a situational fix but just the awareness that such a thing exists might make some players hesitate to try Buff/ Scry/ Teleport/ Kill. There is also a feat in the Campaign Setting "Teleport Sense" which allows a character to detect an incoming teleport and react to it. Not too much help since this is all none-core material, just thought it was interesting in light of the discussion.
Hey! That one was one of mine (the Worldwound section and the feats with it). :)
In a previous thread someone suggested the following simple suggestion which will partly fix the issue.
Teleportation requires an expensive material component which must be expended on casting unless the party is teleporting to an established teleportation target location which must be crafted or commissioned. This would make teleport a good "Get TF Out" spell but not so good for returning.
It's a worthwhile idea, but the problem is this: The expensive component needs to cost as much as or more than the reward the PCs will get for SaD-ing their opponent. If it costs 5000 gp to teleport into a dragon's lair but he's got 50,000 gp worth of treasure, then big deal. More to the point, will it save 5000 gp worth of components or expendable resources by being able to SaD vs. having to run a straight-up fight?
Shoot, even if money isn't at issue, PCs may be glad to pay a 'tax' to ensure success in a hit job. If nothing else, SaD in theory lets you ensure you jump into battle with full buffs rolling, which will make any fight a zillion times easier to win.
I also like the suggestion that scrying a location should not make it familiar for the purpose of teleportation. The caster should have to spend 10 minutes at the location doing nothing other than attuning themselves to the location before they can teleport to a location.
Personally, one of these two ideas would fix 99% of the abuse.
This one works fine for regular TP but unfortunately does nothing to help vs. greater TP, which is only 2 levels higher and has no error chance (and which a retarded number of monsters have as an SLA), nor vs. dim door which is a level lower and has no error chance (and a much shorter range, but plenty long enough if you can get to the vicinity). True, DD makes the caster inactive for most of a round, but the rest of the party can go to town.
Besides which, the reduction in TP accuracy is significant but not earthshattering. You already can't get "very familiar" with scrying. Even if you can't "study carefully" with scrying (94% hit), seen casually is 88% and viewed once is 76%. If you miss, you are likely to be able to fire it up and TP again the next round.
Don't get me wrong; I do like the idea of TP that is easiest to do when your TPing is tied to a spot. Frankly, I think the game could get along fine with just teleportation circle and word of recall and could flush the rest.
I just think restrictions on components don't work to restrict it (because almost any situation important enough to SaD will be rewarding enough to be well worth dumping some dough into getting there), and because of the nature of the spells relying on reduced accuracy isn't a big enough hammer.
TP isn't a spell that needs to be popping off like firecrackers; it's annoying to the game when used it in high-leverage situations. It's like saying "Oh, sure it's powerful, but you can only use it once a month." Well, then the characters will make sure to wait and use it that one time a month that is most inconvenient and annoying.
It is my opinion that having to leave themselves high and dry (dazed and flat-footed should do it) would dissuade most PCs from turning into teleporting paratroop commandos, which to me would be a good thing for the game.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I do like the simplicity, but the problem is it eliminates teleport as an escape method for NPCs and PCs alike - in essence, many crazy wizards would be building their own tomb.I like it. It is, in fact, simple and elegant, AND gives dungeons a reason to exist in...
I actually liked Frank + K's thoughts on this - that 40' of stone (or less of some other materials) completely blocks both scry and teleport. This also gave dungeons a reason to exist, which makes it elegant.Here's the thing, the designer of the dungeon is well aware of this fact. He can have a room that has a very narrow teleport line out from it so it would be almost impossible to accidentally scry/teleport down it from the outside, but which he can use to escape because he knows what the acceptable destination(s) are. He can also have it in a room which is accessible from his command room in the dungeon (and not just have it be his command room). This requires a two-stage teleport (first one to the departure room, second one out), but the departure room need not actually connect to the complex in a manner other than it has less than 40' of stone between it and where he's likely to be. Ie, the owner/designer of a dungeon can still exploit teleport to escape.
The party, on the other hand, would have to multi-teleport to escape the dungeon back out the way they came, and hope they made good measurements so they don't try to make an impossible teleport.
An impossible TP could result in an automatic "mishap" - making TP more dangerous to use. A good thing in my book.
If the dungeon dude has his bolt-hole and it's open going out, then by definition it would be open coming in. That said, you'd have to know it was there. You could scry him, and if he happened to be in the bolt-hole he'd be fair game (since scry targets the person), but to TP you'd need to know the spot, and that might be hard to do.
Here's the problem, though: It opens up the geometrical question of which path the TP follows. Does it go by the straight line? Or the path of least resistance?
If a dungeon is underneath 40' of solid rock ABOVE it, but it has a tunnel leading down a set of stairs, and then a series of winding dungeon passages with iron-bound wooden doors, and so on down the corridor to the bad guy's throne room... well, wouldn't the TP follow the pathway and just zap through the hallways and transparent-to-TP doors on its way in or out?
If a TP bolt-hole could be built that just happened to be a hollow space inside the stone, 30' from the nearest interior wall and 30' from the ground level above, then we're golden. You could TP from dungeon to hole and from hole to ground.
But, if we are talking about a bolt-hole that somehow has an access port, a "very narrow teleport line" as you say, well how big does it have to be to let you bypass the rock? And, more to the point, if TP can fit through that narrow tube, then why the frick can't it fit through dungeon corridors 10' wide? What, the TP signal can't go around corners?
It's an interesting idea, but I think one that needs some refinement to make sure it's not a "Well, it works this way when I design it but that way when you try to use it" spell.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
BTW, new spell: time stop
I think it might be good to stipulate that you can't use TS when you're already using TS. Time is already stopped for you. You can't make it stop MORE. Stopped is as stopped as it gets.
I guess I could see casting it to extend the duration once the initial TS expires, but it still feels a little cheesy to me.
This is very 1st-Ed, very D-series. A classic nerf updated for 3.5.
Classic, not a solution but still a reasonable patch...
Hey! That one was one of mine (the Worldwound section and the feats with it). :)
Quite a cool feat. Unfortunately the regional affinity requirement makes it quite a corner solution.
Your points about the suggestions are valid...
What about simply having all existing duration effects on the characters go away when the character teleports/DDs/Grt TPs out?
It is my opinion that having to leave themselves high and dry (dazed and flat-footed should do it) would dissuade most PCs from turning into teleporting paratroop commandos, which to me would be a good thing for the game.
This is probably the best solution... Maybe in combination with some of these other ideas.
Add the following text to the teleport spells:
"The spell makes an audible crackling noise at the destination as the fabric of space is ripped open. Perception DC 10 to detect the noise, and Spellcraft DC 15+(given teleportation spell's level) is required to identify this noise as the imminent arrival of a teleportation. A creature who successfully identifies an imminent teleportation may initiate a surprise round against the teleporting character, attacking before they have gained their bearings on their new physical location."
Of course, now we'd need to specify the effects of Silent Spell on teleportations.
Ooof.. Dazed and flatfooted! That's one way to do it.
This one works fine for regular TP but unfortunately does nothing to help vs. greater TP, which is only 2 levels higher and has no error chance (and which a retarded number of monsters have as an SLA), nor vs. dim door which is a level lower and has no error chance (and a much shorter range, but plenty long enough if you can get to the vicinity). True, DD makes the caster inactive for most of a round, but the rest of the party can go to town.
Besides which, the reduction in TP accuracy is significant but not earthshattering. You already can't get "very familiar" with scrying. Even if you can't "study carefully" with scrying (94% hit), seen casually is 88% and viewed once is 76%. If you miss, you are likely to be able to fire it up and TP again the next round.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that Scrying should tell you roughly where a person is with some inaccuracy. I'm saying that Scrying should tell you that you're looking at some guy doing something in some room somewhere on the planet, but that's about it. Greater Teleport wouldn't help unless you recognize the place from personal experience.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that Scrying should tell you roughly where a person is with some inaccuracy. I'm saying that Scrying should tell you that you're looking at some guy doing something in some room somewhere on the planet, but that's about it. Greater Teleport wouldn't help unless you recognize the place from personal experience.This one works fine for regular TP but unfortunately does nothing to help vs. greater TP, which is only 2 levels higher and has no error chance (and which a retarded number of monsters have as an SLA), nor vs. dim door which is a level lower and has no error chance (and a much shorter range, but plenty long enough if you can get to the vicinity). True, DD makes the caster inactive for most of a round, but the rest of the party can go to town.
Besides which, the reduction in TP accuracy is significant but not earthshattering. You already can't get "very familiar" with scrying. Even if you can't "study carefully" with scrying (94% hit), seen casually is 88% and viewed once is 76%. If you miss, you are likely to be able to fire it up and TP again the next round.
Ehh, I dunno. Given that GT lets you go there even if you've never seen it, as long as you have a reliable description of it (which you could certainly get by seeing it), it seems to bypass that limitation.
It's not "he's sitting in some room somewhere," it's "he's in THAT room right THERE" - more to the point. "The library/study chamber of Barakus the Mighty."
I dunno, I can see the concept you're talking about but it feels really hard to make into a stable rule.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Add the following text to the teleport spells:
"The spell makes an audible crackling noise at the destination as the fabric of space is ripped open. Perception DC 10 to detect the noise, and Spellcraft DC 15+(given teleportation spell's level) is required to identify this noise as the imminent arrival of a teleportation. A creature who successfully identifies an imminent teleportation may initiate a surprise round against the teleporting character, attacking before they have gained their bearings on their new physical location."
Of course, now we'd need to specify the effects of Silent Spell on teleportations.
Ooof.. Dazed and flatfooted! That's one way to do it.
Well, Silent Spell would only apply to removing the spell's verbal component, so that's neither here nor there, but I think ripping open the fabric of space in a tangible and observable way is a perfectly reasonable side effect of teleportation (or plane travel, for that matter).
Fading into or out of the ethereal? A cloud of ethereal mist roils out of the ether when the shift is made.
The astral? Perhaps a tinkling of glass and a sparkling cascade of silvery astral diamond motes that wink out.
A plane shift? Some sort of brief special effect related to the plane on the other end.
Even blink could work like this - yes, it makes you semi-incorporeal and what-not, but you are trailing this little cascade of pointers behind you, so at least everyone can follow where you are on the battlefield at any given moment.
Come on, we've seen movies and TV shows with TP/gate-type effects. Just "blink and you're gone" is kinda boring. Much more fun when space and time ripple, bend, and flow and you step/are sucked through.
Ehh, I dunno. Given that GT lets you go there even if you've never seen it, as long as you have a reliable description of it (which you could certainly get by seeing it), it seems to bypass that limitation.
It's not "he's sitting in some room somewhere," it's "he's in THAT room right THERE" - more to the point. "The library/study chamber of Barakus the Mighty."
If Barakus the Mighty advertises where he lives, then shame on him for not investing in some magical anti-teleportation protection.
Come on, we've seen movies and TV shows with TP/gate-type effects. Just "blink and you're gone" is kinda boring. Much more fun when space and time ripple, bend, and flow and you step/are sucked through.
Very much agreed. If you're going to nerf something, you might as well use that as an opportunity to make things more atmospheric.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
BTW, new spell: time stop
I think it might be good to stipulate that you can't use TS when you're already using TS. Time is already stopped for you. You can't make it stop MORE. Stopped is as stopped as it gets.
I guess I could see casting it to extend the duration once the initial TS expires, but it still feels a little cheesy to me.
I honestly don't know how to fix timestop other than removing it from the game. The problem is not really TS w/in TS, its using TS to Summon or Gate in multiple monsters within one effective round, or using it to drop satchel charges of explosive runes next to priority targets, or using it to otherwise set-up nasty situations for your opponent before time restarts. For example, you can create or move a large object to 200' above a creatures head, which doesn't move from that position because time is stopped, and then when the TS ends it immediately falls and deals a crapload of damage. Yeah, you can't harm them *during* the TS, but its really easy to set up harmful situations for *after* the TS ends.
Of course, 17+th level wizards can literally rod targets from low orbit without too much difficulty, and while actually resolving the impact isn't precisely covered in the rules the fact that where it lands is going to be at best a large impact crater and at worst a new volcano isn't precisely reassuring for anyone who wants any degree of world versimillitude. So maybe TS really is in-line with other capabilities of the wizard. That doesn't make it any less disturbing, and its a lot easier to find the related uses of TS unless you're into 'practical' sci-fi.
(By 'rod' I mean 'cause a large rod of fairly dense material to fall onto a target', which will not only have a meteorite-type impact but also likely penetrate the crust and disrupt the mantle because of its shape and density. Yes, I can explain how a Wizard does so - its not even hard at 17th level if you put your mind to it).
I was going to ask what "rodding" was and hope that the answer wasn't pornographic... :)
I've seen similar-style tricks, including using monster summoning or even shadow monster/conjuration type spells to drop elephants, dinosaurs, whales, giant flounders, and so on as falling objects, which is... ummm... yeah... And that doesn't even get into trying to deal with geothermal mechanics (though I wonder, given how most D&D worlds seem to have this immense Underdark layer, whether the molten parts of the planet aren't a lot farther down than they are on Earth).
But yes, TS does make some monkey business. Even if we go with a theoretically inefficient direct damage approach, my STAP beguiler could use TS and drop 1d4 intersecting blade barriers plus one solid fog during a TS (and that's assuming I didn't add any quickened spells to the mix during, before, or after the TS) and blenderize most targets without effort. It also makes full-round-casting high-level spells effortless to use.
Perhaps the simplest approach is that you cast it as a swift action and it gives you one extra round of actions. That accomplishes several things:
1. Avoids TS being empowered or maximized.
2. Because it's a swift action, you can't cast any other quickened spell in the same round (though you could quicken a spell during your TS round).
3. Prevents mega-stacking.
Does that make it too wimpy for a 9th level spell? Maybe, but then again, I return to one of my underlying concepts as we talk about this issue:
Don't we ultimately WANT casters to be less insanely powerful?
There are limits of logic and reason on what a martial character should be able to do in a fantasy setting. A magical character, the limits are only your imagination. For both to coexist within a game world without devolving into jedi/stormtrooper, the rules of how magical characters work needs to be brought down, because there is only so far up that the rules of how martial characters work can go without becoming silly.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
If Barakus the Mighty advertises where he lives, then shame on him for not investing in some magical anti-teleportation protection.Ehh, I dunno. Given that GT lets you go there even if you've never seen it, as long as you have a reliable description of it (which you could certainly get by seeing it), it seems to bypass that limitation.
It's not "he's sitting in some room somewhere," it's "he's in THAT room right THERE" - more to the point. "The library/study chamber of Barakus the Mighty."
Sure. I just meant:
A. I'm scrying on Barakus the Mighty (you have to target your scry)
B. Barakus the Mighty is currently in a library/study chamber
which leads us to:
C. I now have a location to which I can teleport with a reliable description: "The library/study chamber of Barakus the Mighty." Perhaps I should have phrased it as "The library/study chamber where Barakus the Mighty is."
If I've seen it with a scrying sensor, I can describe it. If I can describe it, I can GT to it.
NOW, if Barakus' supposed study chamber is covered with a screen spell to appear as something other than what it is, then it is impossible to get a reliable description of it because what you see is not really what is there. In fact, you could study it carefully and still not be able to TP there because you can't see what the place really is. Since the spell affects a big area, is shapeable, and lasts 24 hours, then every HL laired wizard should cast it every day.
You could say the same about hallucinatory terrain, mirage arcana, and perhaps even a room with illusory walls in it - you see something that's not there and it scrambles up the whole game.
Still, this is ultimately an HL caster defense to a strategy that can be used against people/things that aren't HL casters.
If I've seen it with a scrying sensor, I can describe it. If I can describe it, I can GT to it.
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying my house rule disallows (e.g. seeing something via scrying isn't a "good enough" description for teleport/greater teleport). But I get that you're not that into the idea so we might as well move on to discussing other stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
But yes, TS does make some monkey business. Even if we go with a theoretically inefficient direct damage approach, my STAP beguiler could use TS and drop 1d4 intersecting blade barriers plus one solid fog during a TS (and that's assuming I didn't add any quickened spells to the mix during, before, or after the TS) and blenderize most targets without effort. It also makes full-round-casting high-level spells effortless to use.
Perhaps the simplest approach is that you cast it as a swift action and it gives you one extra round of actions. That accomplishes several things:
1. Avoids TS being empowered or maximized.
2. Because it's a swift action, you can't cast any other quickened spell in the same round (though you could quicken a spell during your TS round).
3. Prevents mega-stacking.Does that make it too wimpy for a 9th level spell? Maybe, but then again, I return to one of my underlying concepts as we talk about this issue:
Don't we ultimately WANT casters to be less insanely powerful?
There are limits of logic and reason on what a martial character should be able to do in a fantasy setting. A magical character, the limits are only your imagination. For both to coexist within a game world without devolving into jedi/stormtrooper, the rules of how magical characters work needs to be brought down, because there is only so far up that the rules of how martial characters work can go without becoming silly.
I sorta like this approach to TS, but do think that you'd need to do more to make it a 9th level spell. One thought I had would be to roll other effects into the round + bonus round's actions, such as a souped up haste effect that would:
a) Increase your speed like haste
b) grant double haste bonuses (+2 to AC, attack rolls, and reflex saves - effectively, you're hasted and everyone else is slowed)
c) grant 1 additional attack at your full attack bonus, even if only using an attack action
In addition, maybe an alternate option when casting TS instead of the combat version like this would be to let you craft magic items faster, maybe have the caster "step out" of normal time and for a full day dissapear, while 7 days of subjective time pass, so you could craft 7K gp worth of items in a single day instead of 1K.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
As for the scry/teleport discussion, I really like the visual/audible effect of teleportation, and think that, combined with either a surprize round for those in the area or the dazed for 1 round should be enough to stop this tactic being overpowered.
In addition, for scry effects, they only show the subject of the spell and 10' around them. This means that you can scry/TP to someone, and have no idea if they're going to have their elite guard, bound demons, etc. in the room with them or not. Go ahead and TP in, but I'd rather wait until the scry target has left the room, then wait to TP in the empty room and hunt them down in thier lair from there, instead of TPing in to be surrounded.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
If I've seen it with a scrying sensor, I can describe it. If I can describe it, I can GT to it.Well, that's exactly what I'm saying my house rule disallows (e.g. seeing something via scrying isn't a "good enough" description for teleport/greater teleport). But I get that you're not that into the idea so we might as well move on to discussing other stuff.
Ah, I see the dissonance here. I thought you meant you just couldn't become "very familiar" or "studied carefully." I didn't realize that you meant that you couldn't use it AT ALL (not even for "seen once" or "viewed casually").
Yes, that would be a workable step, though GT doesn't even require seeing it. Just something that describes it. Fuzzy wording on GT is perhaps more the problem there than anything.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
But yes, TS does make some monkey business. Even if we go with a theoretically inefficient direct damage approach, my STAP beguiler could use TS and drop 1d4 intersecting blade barriers plus one solid fog during a TS (and that's assuming I didn't add any quickened spells to the mix during, before, or after the TS) and blenderize most targets without effort. It also makes full-round-casting high-level spells effortless to use.
Perhaps the simplest approach is that you cast it as a swift action and it gives you one extra round of actions. Does that make it too wimpy for a 9th level spell?
sorta like this approach to TS, but do think that you'd need to do more to make it a 9th level spell. One thought I had would be to roll other effects into the round + bonus round's actions, such as a souped up haste effect that would:
a) Increase your speed like haste
b) grant double haste bonuses (+2 to AC, attack rolls, and reflex saves - effectively, you're hasted and everyone else is slowed)
c) grant 1 additional attack at your full attack bonus, even if only using an attack action
I like the super-haste idea.
I also was thinking of a psi power from 2nd Ed Dark Sun that was similar to TS (Time Dilation maybe, from 'The Will and the Way') where you would be stunned or some such when you 'snapped back' to regular time/speed.
Perhaps TS would leave you dazed for as many rounds as you were in the TS. That's pretty hardcore, but so is getting 1d4+1 rounds of spells off instantly and without danger. Whatever you set up in the TS, it better work!
In addition, maybe an alternate option when casting TS instead of the combat version like this would be to let you craft magic items faster, maybe have the caster "step out" of normal time and for a full day dissapear, while 7 days of subjective time pass, so you could craft 7K gp worth of items in a single day instead of 1K.
I love it! Simple, clean, useful, and sensible. It fits the tone of the spell while actually helping gameplay (speeding item creation on those expensive items).