Rant alert: It's time for my bi-weekly whine regarding magic, you have been warned
Skimming a bit through the magic chapter I read the designer note regarding the Find the Path spell and the designers' fears of the PCs "cheating their way to the lich phyllactery or the lost city"... and I found it quite sad. What's next? Nerfing Augury in case the players play "eeny meenie minie moe" inside the labirynth? Removing Detect Magic because it's not fair skipping Perception rolls to find the loot?
...
Now, I know this is Not gonna happen but...wouldn't it be saner to just add to the Cleric or Sor/Wiz spell lists some low-to-high level abjuration spells to protect people and places from divinations? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to have lost cities without the need for cheap plot devices? (both rethoric questions, I don't need any magic haters answering, again I don't even use PF's spells so it's the same to me).
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to have lost cities without the need for cheap plot devices?
Absolutely! That's why find the path needs to go. Otherwise, you just cannot have any lost city (or any other lost locale) in the second half of the game (i.e. with characters of levels 11 and up) without countermagic.
Yes, it means that every villain who wants to be hidden needs countermagic.
Every thieves's guild needs countermagic. Otherwise, they're doomed as soon as the city guard can lay a hand on an 11th-level, who then leads unerringly to the secret guild hall, past any lesser magic defenses or even mundane traps.
I don't think every lost city should have to be within some magic protection.
|
If there are no living inhabitants, then you need the plot device of a permanent zone of non-detection, which is, paradoxically, in itself, a method of detection.
Our Shackled City PCs found the lair of the main cultists by employing all the churches of Cauldron to pool their divination, and eliminated all areas we could get answers for, until there was a 'blob' of mystery left over.
If there are no living inhabitants, then you need the plot device of a permanent zone of non-detection, which is, paradoxically, in itself, a method of detection.
If the spell exists and works just as it would for your players then it's not a plot device, that's what Artifacts and Relics are for, and if I ever GM a game where my players achieve level 12+, they'll have my personal blessing to try and create such an artifact or ritual on their own (even if that becomes the focus of an adventure in itself). My games have the premise that, if something magical exists, my players either can do it or at least have the right to attempt it.
A plot device would be, say, an enemy spellcaster going (Walt Disney's) Sleeping Beauty's evil queen, using Shapechange with all the benefits of 2E's version, and becoming a fire-spewing, adult Red Dragon when all you allow your players is Pathfinder's version of the spell, the kind of things that get your players yelling at you and for which you lack any answer that doesn't boil down to "because he's and NPC".
Our Shackled City PCs found the lair of the main cultists by employing all the churches of Cauldron to pool their divination, and eliminated all areas we could get answers for, until there was a 'blob' of mystery left over.
Solution which is all too easy to turn on your diviner by fixing several places with either more "scrying voids" or Magical Auras mimicking your own here and there in order to generate "false positives", making one of those false positives particularly alluring (just not so alluring it becomes obvious) and making that spot into a trap. ;)
|
|
Our Shackled City PCs found the lair of the main cultists by employing all the churches of Cauldron to pool their divination, and eliminated all areas we could get answers for, until there was a 'blob' of mystery left over.
Solution which is all too easy to turn on your diviner by fixing several places with either more "scrying voids" or Magical Auras mimicking your own here and there in order to generate "false positives", making one of those false positives particularly alluring (just not so alluring it becomes obvious) and making that spot into a trap. ;)
LOL.
I actually worried about that possibility, on the grounds that 'That's what I'd do', but apparently, the AP writers aren't as much of a bastard as me!
Spells in general, not just FTP.
The problem with alot of spells is that it isn't terribly realistic to make every single creature, object, item, and location, proof against every spell. You quickly run into the issue of "well, i shouldn't have ever -taken- that spell since apparently you never want it to work anyway".
Invisibility for example is a 2nd level spell that the vast majority of Creatures have no way to protect themselves against- much less its greater cousin. NPC's based off of PC races have even fewer defenses against it. While See invis has the same duration as Invisibility, even a high level caster will be hard pressed to keep it up all the time, on all the guards.. or even a few of the guards.
You can, of course, ward ever hallway with Invis Purge and give every guard a wand or the Perma form of See Invis- but again, you are then negating a spell entirely.
FTP is pretty much the same way. It either: Does what it says it does.
Or: You disallow it in the campaign.
There really isn't much middle ground to be had. Saying that we can just invent a myriad of protections against it really just says that any location you would /want/ to FTP, you can't- because they warded it. You have effectively moved the "ball" from "lets nerf the spell to make it usable" to "lets remove the spell from the game". You are just going about it a different way.
(for example, if you say all AOO's take a -20 penalty to hit you are effectively removing AOO's from the game without technically taking a pen and crossing it out. It's there, it just doesn't effectively exist...)
Every spell in the book should do something without automatically being blocked by something else, all the time. If a spell is so powerful that its existence means nothing else can effectively exist then it needs to be nerfed.
Going back to the FTP example:
The spell can no longer be used to find small locations. It can't be used to find locations within locations. To my reading, finding the thieve's guild would only effectively work if the guild hall was /huge/. And even then, all you would find is one possible entrance. Not the path through it to the main sanctuary, but just one door. it doesn't find traps anymore, and it doesn't get you *through* the location, just to the entrance. This is even assuming the thieve's guild has one permanent base- and it may not.
If you go back onto the Alpha forums you'll find that I wasn't particularly in favor of them messing with the spell at all. I AM however pleased that in changing it, they kept the spirit and the flavor of the spell without so terribly gutting it that it's useless.
Some spells just need to be changed in order for the campaign to make sense.
You could, of course, just -create- a spell that blocked FTP and make every ancient city have it up in Mythal fashion.. but haven't you then just effectively erased FTP from the spell list, without actually teling the PC's they can't take the spell?
-S
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Or perhaps the success of the spell can be dependant on how many humanoid beings are actually aware of its location. So the more people who know where the location is the better the chance of "Finding the Path" to it. Thus allowing for people to find well known cities and semi-known dungeons while still keeping the "Lost" places unfindable.
No offense meant but:
Thats just another way of erasing the spell.
The spell has no utility, especially for its level, if it can't find places you can't find.
Saying "it can only find places with people in them" means it can't do what the spell is designed to do. You might as well just snip the spell from the list.
-S
At some point when we were still in the Alpha testing stage I suggested a solution for Find the Path that proved relatively popular and could be extended to other divinations.
The basic premise is that Find the Path works as described in the rules, but in order to use it, the caster must have a focus. The focus must be an object from the place he is trying to find.
This way the spell can still be useful and even add flavor, but the DM need not be frustrated by it, since it is possible to design adventures to acquire an object from the long lost city that the party wants to find...
It is entirely possible to expand this concept to other divination spells too. In order to scry on the evil priest locked away in his Tower of Doom, the caster might need a focus - one of his posessions or perhaps a lock of hair.
Such an approach enables divinations to be meaningful and useful, yet not break the game for the DM by completely obliterating his carefully-crafted "Find the Lost City" or similar adventures.
|
The problem with a lot of spells is that it isn't terribly realistic to make every single creature, object, item, and location, proof against every spell. You quickly run into the issue of "well, i shouldn't have ever -taken- that spell since apparently you never want it to work anyway".
Exactly. Better to make a version of Find the Path that *doesn't* require a war of mutual escalation with the DM, than to have a spell on your spell-list that you *know* he'll never allow to work as written, because *everything* important will be 'shielded' against it.
It's just a recipe for frustration to put the spell on the list, and then tell DMs to never let it work on anything important and to just assume that anything they want hidden is specially shielded against it.
'Oh, and this is the awesome game-changing Fly spell, but if you ever cast it, you'll be attacked by a swarm of Piranhakeets and devoured within seconds because I don't want you short-changing my adventure...'
Lame. The spell should be changed pro-actively, not made to suffer the death of a thousand tiny nerfs re-actively by advising DMs to make it useless.
I'd rather have the wasted text describing the spell, and then the sidebar describing how to nerf it into oblivion, used to detail something that I'll actually get to USE.
You also have to evaluate the spell against the level the PC's are at. It's not just about what the spell does- but their general power level, and what you should be expecting them to do.
At some point, dungeon crawls suck, mechanically speaking, because the PC's aren't contrained by it. Forcing PC's into one when its "too late" will just bore them and frustrate you as they Disintegrate their way to the goal (for example).
FTP is another example. At 10-11, the PC's are some of the most powerful people in the world. Statistically. Getting upset that they can use a spell to find a city is sort of missing the picture, imo. Instead, you need to *take thespell into account* when writing your adventure.
Let the enemy have it too. Make it a race to get there.
Or put plot points between spot A and B to make them Not just skip to the end.
Things such as:
Getting to the city is only the beginning.
Getting to the city isn't as important as catching the bad guy Before he gets there.
the city is only the beginning is my personal favorite. No random encounter in the jungle should be up to par with them anyway- so why not let them skip it? They can flex their stuff, zip through the crap and get to the city where the real problem begins.
Great, so you have a city. -now what-. Find The building with The item *before* BBEG (or his goons) find the building.
FTP is wortheless for that part, it just let them use their abilities go get started.
Which is what being higher level is all about.
I don't mean to pick on that spell- alot of others can be used more or less in that same way. Let the divination spell put the PC's on track.
"Oh no, Big Bad Meanie Guy is the one who stole the princess. oh gosh he took her to Unspeakable island!"
*Pc's Teleport to Island*
then the real fun begins,
and so on.
=)
-S
|
|
If you go back onto the Alpha forums you'll find that I wasn't particularly in favor of them messing with the spell at all. I AM however pleased that in changing it, they kept the spirit and the flavor of the spell without so terribly gutting it that it's useless.
Yeah, you had me puzzled for a moment.
"There's something not quite right, here".
LOL
|
For what it's worth, find the path is the only divination spell that I think really needs a nerf. The rest work pretty good already.
maybe, but here Set offers an interesting approach, which helps both players and DM to have an interesting story (which as someone pointed, sometimes is not the goal the end of the road... but the beginning of it)
It's just a recipe for frustration to put the spell on the list, and then tell DMs to never let it work on anything important and to just assume that anything they want hidden is specially shielded against it.
Set i love this approach... it makes important to have something from there, a quest in itself, not something half from there or copied, but the real thing... a quest tofind the city could be to find first an actual 'artifact' or 'relic' (archeological, not mystic sense) and then looking for the city
an artfact and decent documentation... like the old Teleport where you needed to know about the place to arrive safely
|
|
When this sort of 'write to the setting' concept falls down is when I pick up an adventure and the party is expected to never know that the bad-guy is evil (a core adventure should be written under the assumption that the detect evil is readily available, even to a party without a Paladin), or that the NPC is going to die before being able to give any more than an oblique hint of upcoming danger (despite the ubiquitous nature of healing magics, and even lower level effects that can treat or delay disease or poison), or something like that.
Find the Path is one specific high level spell that seems almost *designed* to 'skip the adventure.' If an adventure is designed in such a way that Find the Path wrecks it, it's not the end of the world, it's just a sign that this one particular spell is a bit of a problem child.
If an adventure is written in such a way as to be steamrollered by someone with some 1st level core ability (such as a Paladin's detect evil, a Clerics ability to Turn or Rebuke, etc.), the adventure needs to be re-thought to work with the basic setting assumptions.
I haven't seen much of this in 3rd edition, but in earlier editions, I regularly saw adventures were 'divinations spells don't work here' or 'summoning spells don't work here' or 'teleportation magic doesn't work here' caveats were thrown in by designers unwilling to adapt their storyline for the existence of magic, which is sort of a *staple* of the D&D setting.
If I'm writing a D&D adventure, it should be written with the assumption that D&D characters are going to be going through it...
You quickly run into the issue of "well, i shouldn't have ever -taken- that spell since apparently you never want it to work anyway".
Wow... this time you really got me, I myself was falling for the trap of pre-emptive gaming for a moment, when that's precisely the habit I hate the most in any DM.
You're right... it's better to remove Find the Path from game altogether before the writers submit it to the same sad fate of shape-shifting spells.
I wholly agree. One of the main points of ever considering playing DnD, for me, is the ability to toy with reality-bending magic. If I'm that much uncomfortable with the fact, that PCs can solve many stereotypical plots by, you know, applying their powers, there is always 4E (or, for that matter, any of the more "realistic" game systems) for me. In this particular example, the nerf is ridiculous, because finding lost cities is what that spell is for - and it is not like it would allow you to scry & fry their inhabitants (what really needs fixing, anyway, is the inability of anyone but wizards to counter scry & fry before highest levels). Thieves' guilds cannot escape detection? Exactly - what self-respecting high-level spellcaster can have any problem with removing such filth from his city (not that any thives' guild have any chance of hiding in the typical DnD city whatsoever, before we even start thinking of magic)? Spell allows you to avoid traps. Wow, that's big. Except not, considering, that by 11th level you can just nuke the site from orbit. Any fix that does not take into account the fact that magic can easily solve all mundane problems, up to and including death, by lower-high levels, and then works from there, auto-fails for me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Divinations are very tricky business. They can easily be plot-hosers and even world-hosers. I would vote to kick Find the Path once or twice more, to let to go from Death's Door to solidly buried. Adding defenses against them... yeah. You could just as well say the PC ability works only when you want it to work. At least my players are not very forgiving for that kind of thing, especially if they consider it part of their "arsenal".
Maybe some smaller, leaner and more sensible variant could be found eventually, but as it stands, the spell has huge potential to ruin everyones game, with little benefit
Frankly, i am at a loss to see an adventure supporting application that is not extremely lazy writing. "You cast find the path and find the ruins of XYZ" is just not very engaging. It makes my ask "why has noone tried that one before?"
Answer is: they did try and were eaten by Elder Abomination, which resides in that forgotten city. Or they did try, killed the Elder Abomination, looted everything they were interested in and left treasure that was beneath their notice lying around, so that you can kill level-appropriate Dangerous Beasts and Hostile Savages, now infesting the city and loot said treasure. Took me all of five seconds to come up with these.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
It shows ;)
Seriously, though. Why not a "Find Murderer" Spell. You speak the name of a victim, and it unerringly leads you to all guilty parties involved in the murder?
I can tell you why not: Nothing to do for the party other than roll fights. It is just more interesting if things can get off the map, and not only by people actively not looking for it.
There is already no less than half-dozen "Find Murderer" spells, no point of creating a new one just for that. All mundane challenges are easily solved by magic, after a certain level. That's the main point of playing high-magic game system, instead of using to something made for "gritty" fantasy. Get over it. Realize the fact, that level 5+ characters are already super-powerful and can easily bypass tons of things, that count as obstacles for normal mortals. Find other ways to challenge your players, that withholding information. Don't try to arbitrarily enforce your genre assumptions.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Err... Sorry, but come again? I am forcing you to conform to what now? All i am saying is that this spell closes off a lot of potential plots, and thus should be avoided.
If anything you are trying to enforce you assumption ("magic should overcome anything i consider mundane by character level X"). If you feel comfortable with this, fine. Its well within your power to allow it. But the basic rules should really try and meet most styles, not just the one you are into - and that means that some effects might not really be the best fit.
If you think, that "closing potential plots" is a valid reason for avoiding the spell, then standard DnD (pre-4th edition) is not the system for you. As well as any system with powerful and versatile supernatural abilities. Sorry, but it is just that simple. Complaining about the fact that you can read thoughts, instantly heal anything (even death, eventually), spy from afar, teleport and do other stuff that utterly invalidates certain plot twists, in DnD 3E is about as productive, as complaining about the fact that characters can bypass or instatly solve tons of mundane challenges with their flight, superspeed, incorporeality, telepathy and whatever in superhero games. Having strong powers with wide non-combat utility = being able to easily overcome challenges by applying them. Deal with it, be imaginative, and do not create plots that can be automatically resolved by your party's abilities. Or, I don't know, ban spellcasters and do not allow characters to advance above 5th-6th levels.
Also, DnD's basic rules do not meet "various styles", unless you mean "basic rules with a ton of houserules (or, maybe, stealth nerfs)", of course. Like all systems, DnD imposes a certain playstyle and, through it, genre. Cope with this or change this, but this is a fact. Not "assumption". Solid fact, clearly stated by dozens upon dozens of spells, that DO overcome just about any mundane challenge that you can imagine. DEATH is hardly a problem by 11th level. Why saving some time on searching for forgotten cities should be one for people that, you know, can communicate with gods?
And, while I agree, that some of crazy things magic allows you to do in DnD, such as nuking of site-based adventures by teleporting mages, are pretty abusive and destroy fun, Find The Path is not among them. In fact, all it does is allowing you to skip boring and unchallenging (for 11th levels) parts of the adventure and get to the insteresting stuff faster. Oh, and to avoid some traps, but remember, that 11th level characters can simply dismantle the whole dungeon, piece by piece, unless it has some magical countermeasures.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
If you think, that "closing potential plots" is a valid reason for avoiding the spell, then standard DnD (pre-4th edition) is not the system for you. As well as any system with powerful and versatile supernatural abilities.
Well, i could write up a nice flame from that sentence alone, but will not do so. I don't s%+& where i eat, so to speak. Suffice to say, my preferences are as valid as yours, and "go play 4th Edition" is not any argument. In addition I'll have you know that i played and enjoyed White Wolf's Exalted for quite a while.
Sorry, but it is just that simple.
Funny, 90% someone says that to me, they are covering their rear end because they are out of real arguments.
Complaining about the fact that you can read thoughts, instantly heal anything (even death, eventually), spy from afar, teleport and do other stuff that utterly invalidates certain plot twists, in DnD 3E is about as productive, as complaining about the fact that characters can bypass or instatly solve tons of mundane challenges with their flight, superspeed, incorporeality, telepathy and whatever in superhero games. Having strong powers with wide non-combat utility = being able to easily overcome challenges by applying them. Deal with it, be imaginative, and do not create plots that can be automatically resolved by your party's abilities. Or, I don't know, ban spellcasters and do not allow characters to advance above 5th-6th levels.
And here you misrepresent my point. I am not saying "Heroes should have no abilities that allow them to bypass otherwise significant obstacles. I am questioning, rather actively, if a certain power is wise to include in the game, and if it is furthermore wise to allow it at comparatively low level. While the word is horribly abused in many internet debates, here you really are putting up a strawmen.
What i am saying is: Several of the readily-available divinations are easily able to ruin otherwise very much in-theme plots and stories, and require copious amounts of "anti-rules" to avoid overarching consequences. It would be better to remove or restrict some of these abilities rather than put up hundreds of forcefields, and give any ancient temple an aura of improved misdirection with magic dampening.
Also, DnD's basic rules do not meet "various styles", unless you mean "basic rules with a ton of houserules (or, maybe, stealth nerfs)", of course. Like all systems, DnD imposes a certain playstyle and, through it, genre. Cope with this or change this, but this is a fact. Not "assumption". Solid fact, clearly stated by dozens upon dozens of spells, that DO overcome just about any mundane challenge that you can imagine. DEATH is hardly a problem by 11th level. Why saving some time on searching for forgotten cities should be one for people that, you know, can communicate with gods?
Ah, "this is a fact". See my comment regarding "it is just that simple". Saying something is a fact does not make it one. I have successfully played and GMed anything from a heroic, save-the-world asskickery scenario to a lord of the flies-esque game to your generic dungeon crawl to the AoW path. Very different styles of play, very different levels and very very different world assumptions.
Just to answer a specific point: Communicating with Gods is described as very risky business even in the spell description itself. You might want to keep it this way.
Quoting cut off the rest of your post, so any points you might have made further down are not part of this reply. Suffice to say, you seem quite set in your view of "proper play", and that is your right. I have a different view, and naturally would like a system that represents this (i dare think, wider) view of things.
Consider it this way: It is always easier to introduce something into a system and setting than to excise. If something is potentially troubling and gives no clear benefit, this alone gives me a good hunch which way to go with it.
Cope with it.... Deal with it...
I think without these clauses that come across sounding like you're at home listening to your parents, your point would come across stronger.
In fact, all it does is allowing you to skip boring and unchallenging (for 11th levels) parts of the adventure and get to the insteresting stuff faster. Oh, and to avoid some traps, but remember, that 11th level characters can simply...
This is a reasonable perspective, especially when you view the game through the lens of what the players want to do. Which, in D&D, is "find things, kill things, take their stuff". Many DMs ascribe to a different point of view though, and hence the issue with Find the Path. There might be good and valid story reasons to want a few encounters along the way.
I really like the focus idea as a fix. That's excellent, and it opens the door for many new and appropriate plots.
And here you misrepresent my point. I am not saying "Heroes should have no abilities that allow them to bypass otherwise significant obstacles. I am questioning, rather actively, if a certain power is wise to include in the game, and if it is furthermore wise to allow it at comparatively low level.
11th level is comparatively low? Heh. By that time you can spy on your enemies across half the world, and then travel that distance in an instant to kill them. Non-arcanists still have no viable defences against that, by the way and won't have for several levels. If we look at areas beyond detection and travel, you also can devastate cities with a single spell (doesn't Control Winds kick ass? yes, it does), crush economies of whole countries (Fabricate) or raise the dead; and that's just by using the spells as they are intended to work, without chain-binding, infinite Wishes and other cheese. How Find the Path is not wise to include in the game compared to that? Also, it is not like obstacles is allows to bypass are indeed significant. Not only Knowledge (bardic or standart) roll can give you all the information, that Find the Path makes unnecessary, on a silver platter; not only Find the Path is easily duplicated by subject-searching spells in, oh, every single situation except searching for an unknown location.
What i am saying is: Several of the readily-available divinations are easily able to ruin otherwise very much in-theme plots lots and stories, and require copious amounts of "anti-rules" to avoid overarching consequences.
Yes. But these plots aren't "very much in-theme". Theme of DnD at these levels is either "I kill things and take their stuff" (that's pretty much level-independent) or "I do crazy things with my awesome power" or "I'm a high fantasy hero on a quest to save XXX" (often overlaps with option two). At least, that's what the system actually supports (as opposed to "can be made to support if you bend it hard enough"). None of them particularly benefits from derailing the main story with information-gathering sidequests. Poring through dusty tomes or cajoling NPCs into spilling the beans is so low level. Also, I don't remember many high fantasy heroes doing that. Of course, in the right hands such sidequests can be fun - but they are not intristically better, that going straight for the main goal. Also, ability to cut on the potentially boring parts and jump straigth into the action can actually benefit the game. And if one Ultimate Temple of Doomy Doom absolutely must remain hidden...
It would be better to remove or restrict some of these abilities rather than put up hundreds of forcefields, and give any ancient temple an aura of improved misdirection with magic dampening.
...then no, giving it such an aura would be better. First, it is better to have an option that can be, sometimes, countered, that not to have an option. Second, just as presenting worthy opponents for high-level heroes (you can replace them in this phrase with any iconic powerful characters, such as Jedi, comic superheroes, etc) would be totally better than stripping them of their signature abilities, so that even mooks can threaten them (note, that invulnerability to mooks shuts down way more typical fantasy plots than any single spell). Nerfing a great utility option, while keeping scry & fry super-cheese that can be used to destroy everything, except better spellcasters, in any adventure without a very strict timer, strikes me as totally counterpoductive. I'm against removing or nerfing options, unless it is proven beyond all doubt, that the option in question is ridiculously broken, because the whole point of 3E is the breadth of options. Find the Path does not fall in the category of "ridiculously broken", for the reasons described above.
Saying something is a fact does not make it one.
Things that written in the game books are, in fact, written in the game books. These things include spells and items that can overcome or bypass nearly any imaginable challenge or task, from making people your friends to travelling fast to living forever. Most of them are available by 11th level. Find the Path does not particularly stand out amount the rest of available utility powers. Cope with this or change this, but this is a fact. And do not pretent that you did not change the system, if you did. And yes, changing "world assumptions" such as (the most common example) availability of magic goods and services is changing the system. Like it or hate it, but you cannot deny, that in DnD 3E magic is turned up to eleven, and this very much influences the game style past the first few level, unless players, I don't know, cannot figure how to cast Detect Thoughts.
Consider it this way: It is always easier to introduce something into a system and setting than to excise.
On the opposite. In the latter case, developers do the work on that "something", I just evaluate it and decide, whether to keep it or not; in the former case I do the work.
Cope with it.... Deal with it...I think without these clauses that come across sounding like you're at home listening to your parents, your point would come across stronger.
Plus, it's a tall order, considering that right now, find the path is out of the game, so the coping fally to him really.
Find the Path does not particularly stand out amount the rest of available utility powers. Cope with this or change this, but this is a fact.
That's exactly the point -- the Pathfinder RPG is trying to change this. If you use Pathfinder, you'll indeed have to cope with the change(s).
I certainly agree that there are other spells that should be changed too (Gate, Planar Binding, Scrying, maybe Teleport), but that doesn't mean that Find the Path isn't worthy of changing as well.
We can debate this further when the Spells category comes up for comment.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Yes. But these plots aren't "very much in-theme". Theme of DnD at these levels is either "I kill things and take their stuff" (that's pretty much level-independent) or "I do crazy things with my awesome power" or "I'm a high fantasy hero on a quest to save XXX" (often overlaps with option two).
Errmm... I am sorry? For you not having had any game that was not entirely dungeon focused. Sure, they are fun, and in all honesty, they are what Paizo does best. The system has more available than that, though. Really, if you were going "Power, more power!"... why bother with D&D, some superhero RPG might be a better choice. Besides, having awesome power is ok. It is nice, really. But what kind of "awesome power" do you get? There's quite a lot of those who don't require a key to every lock. A few locks might actually be more interesting keyless.
At least, that's what the system actually supports (as opposed to "can be made to support if you bend it hard enough"). None of them particularly benefits from derailing the main story with information-gathering sidequests. Poring through dusty tomes or cajoling NPCs into spilling the beans is so low level. Also, I don't remember many high fantasy heroes doing that. Of course, in the right hands such sidequests can be fun - but they are not intristically better, that going straight for the main goal. Also, ability to cut on the potentially boring parts and jump straigth into the action can actually benefit the game. And if one Ultimate Temple of Doomy Doom absolutely must remain hidden...
Oh? About any jungle adventure features that? Just because you don't like legwork, and are very goal focused player doesn't mean it can not, and should not have place in the game. "This is so low-level"? Sorry, but i Indiana Jones is not low-level, and look at the three good movies - he does a lot of very exciting legwork in the Quest for the Holy Grail.
Just as there are good and bad dungeons, there are good and bad "town" parts. I'd like to keep them.
...then no, giving it such an aura would be better. First, it is better to have an option that can be, sometimes, countered, that not to have an option.
Why not go the other way around, like a more limited spell? I mean, if you need the fast-track, great. Give your group the route. So if you have the "map", by some means or gimmick to divine this one path - fine. If not, great. You need to find your "map" then. Two options for the writer now, where previously there was only one - that's a clear gain in my book.
I am not saying there can't be any way of navigating magically. I am against the "one size fits all" solution that shifts the default towards "X is reachable", because as open as that sounds, it cuts off more in options than "Some places are reachable".
Second, just as presenting worthy opponents for high-level heroes (you can replace them in this phrase with any iconic powerful characters, such as Jedi, comic superheroes, etc) would be totally better than stripping them of their signature abilities, so that even mooks can threaten them (note, that invulnerability to mooks shuts down way more typical fantasy plots than any single spell).
Errmm... don't quite follow here. I don't see too many problems with "Invulnerable" characters from a play perspective. It is just not very exciting to have 35000 attack rolls against the damn fighter.
Besides, lost cities and ancient, forgotten ruins are really defining to the genre - just as seemingly overpowering figures of great evil are. One effect reinforces these genre conventions, the other erodes them. Guess which one i like better?
That's exactly the point -- the Pathfinder RPG is trying to change this. If you use Pathfinder, you'll indeed have to cope with the change(s).
Basically (let's this also count as an answer to TerraNova, cause I'm too tired to flame him back and repeat the same arguments over and over), I think, that this is choosing the same path as 4E, and choosing the same path as 4E is choosing the path of defeat for Pathfinder, at least where I and our group are concerned. Reasons are as follows:
1)The two main advantages of 3E over the multitude of other systems are the unparalleled breadth of mechanical options (thanks to tons of supplements), and the fact that it does gonzo, high-magic, super-heroic, kitchen sink fantasy better than any of its rivals. (Did I mention, that both Exalted rulesets suck at that, as I know all too well from the first-hand experience? Now I did.)2)Nerfs in general, particularly nerfs that have deep-reaching mechanical consequences and invalidate tons of builds (say, Power Attack nerf), not only violate backwards compatibility, but also undermine both of these advantages. Nerfs of utility magic indermine the second one significantly.
3)I don't care about relearning dozens of rules/items/spells that received minor changes. Either go for a full-scale new edition and drop "backwards compatibility" sham, or do not change things, unless these things are instant campaign-winners (chain-binding, unlimited Wish loops, PAO/Shapechange, perhaps; scry & fry borders on that - you can counter it, technically, but the wast majority of published adventures are going to be destroyed by that), just because you have a specific opinion about how the game should be played.
3)I don't care about relearning dozens of rules/items/spells that received minor changes. Either go for a full-scale new edition and drop "backwards compatibility" sham, or do not change things, unless these things are instant campaign-winners (chain-binding, unlimited Wish loops, PAO/Shapechange, perhaps; scry & fry borders on that - you can counter it, technically, but the wast majority of published adventures are going to be destroyed by that), just because you have a specific opinion about how the game should be played.
Again, I'm generally in agreement with you. But from what I've seen so far, there are already dozens of rules/items/spells that have received minor changes. If that's going to cause you to lose interest, then I'm surprised you haven't lost interest already.
Personally, I don't mind a well-placed nerf here and there. If there's one thing I really dislike, it's the argument: "A wizard can just cast spell X to end an encounter completely, so a fighter needs to be able to do the same thing, too!" (O.K., I'm setting up a straw man; no one ever argues that exact thing, but you get the drift.) To me, that means that spell X is probably a little bit too good.
So I don't have any problem with the nerfed Pathfinder versions of Grease and Glitterdust, for instance. But I'm still baffled that spells like Gate aren't being fixed first.
For Find the Path, I'd be happy enough if they got rid of the trapfinding part of it (which I think is just gilding the lily), but it's not something I really care about much either way.
Plus, it's a tall order, considering that right now, find the path is out of the game, so the coping fally to him really.
That's assuming, I'm ever going to convert. If you missed the idea, PBeta does not make a very good work of luring me away from 3E and its mountain of supplemental material, so far.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
3)I don't care about relearning dozens of rules/items/spells that received minor changes. Either go for a full-scale new edition and drop "backwards compatibility" sham, or do not change things, unless these things are instant campaign-winners (chain-binding, unlimited Wish loops, PAO/Shapechange, perhaps; scry & fry borders on that - you can counter it, technically, but the wast majority of published adventures are going to be destroyed by that), just because you have a specific opinion about how the game should be played.
Paizo simply can't reprint the 3.5 rules verbatim, and neither should they. Pathfinder will vary in detail, and while many mechanics will be similar to 3.5, it will be different in detail. Simply consider "feats at every odd level" as opposed to 3.5.
Backwards compatibility was never meant as "identical rules", i think. It meant that most of the options you've grown used to still exist in some shape or form. Not necessarily all, and not always in the same efficiency relations.
Rules will change, and one of the goals of this playtest is to change them for the better. Removing some troublesome options or restating them to prevent some abuses is one of these changes. A change I welcome and support. You seem to be very averse to any change, especially any that might limit options. Fair enough, you made yourself heard.
I am in favor of this particular change, because i feel it improves more than it damages. I think my view is not unreasonable, and some other posters expressed similar views. You prefer another style of play, but unless you can really bring something to the table to convince me, I think we really have not much more to discuss. Let's see how the final book turns out.
Again, I'm generally in agreement with you. But from what I've seen so far, there are already dozens of rules/items/spells that have received minor changes. If that's going to cause you to lose interest, then I'm surprised you haven't lost interest already.
Well, there is still some hope for radical improvements between Beta and the final version. I honestly like the new rogue, as well as the general direction of ranger, paladin and barbarian changes, so I'm not abandoning it entirely yet. Also, I approve of skill merging - it is not even hard to use with 3.5 enemy statblocks on the fly. But feats, magic, items spellcasting classes and CMB are dealbreakers for me so far.
How about the idea I posted above of requiring a Focus to cast Find the Path, where the Focus would have to be an object from the location Find the Path is trying to find. That way, the spell is still useful, but the characters have to get hold of that ancient weapon forged in the City that Sunk into the Sea (TM) to be able to use the spell to locate the city. Where that item is and who possesses it, of course, is up to the DM...
If the idea is extended further, a similar approach could be used to limit, but not remove, other problematic spells, especially divinations. Examples would include Scry, where the caster would need something from the creature being spied upon. This could be something stolen from the target or even a lock of hair or something along those lines. It would be a flavorful way to limit the spell.
I am not sure how much further we would want to take it, but in theory, the idea could be used to limit a wide range of problematic spells. Even spells such as Teleport could be limited by this: the caster would need an item from the place the caster is teleporting to. The same could be done to even Save or Die spells - yes, the caster can transform a creature into a frog, or kill the creature instantly with a death effect, but not without having something from that creature (the DM determines what counts).
This could lead to interesting combat mechanics, as the caster could not just wipe out a powerful creature that the party has just now come accross with a single save or die spell. However, the party rogue (or even another character) may perhaps try to steal something from the creature during combat to pass it on to the caster, or the party Fighter (or Paladin, or...) might decide to disarm the creature (if it has a weapon) and throw the weapon to the caster so that the caster can cast his save or die spell. There could even be a mechanic tied to Slight of Hand, that when damage is done, the character doing the damage may snatch a meaningful 'piece' of the creature, such as a lock of hair from a humanoid or a single scale from a reptilian or dragon, or a feather from a griffin (you get the idea). Meanwhile, the caster can still be useful in combat casting other spells, such as buffs, debuffs, utility spells, direct damage spells, and so on that do not require a focus.
|
|
If the idea is extended further, a similar approach could be used to limit, but not remove, other problematic spells, especially divinations. Examples would include Scry, where the caster would need something from the creature being spied upon. This could be something stolen from the target or even a lock of hair or something along those lines. It would be a flavorful way to limit the spell.
While I'm not as in love with the idea of having it work with save or dies or whatever, I do love the idea of having to fulfill some pre-conditions before scrying on someone or teleporting into a new area.
If the idea is extended further, a similar approach could be used to limit, but not remove, other problematic spells, especially divinations. Examples would include Scry, where the caster would need something from the creature being spied upon. This could be something stolen from the target or even a lock of hair or something along those lines. It would be a flavorful way to limit the spell.While I'm not as in love with the idea of having it work with save or dies or whatever, I do love the idea of having to fulfill some pre-conditions before scrying on someone or teleporting into a new area.
Thanks for the comment!
Yes, I myself am unsure as to how far I would want to extend the idea - whether to apply it just to Find the Path, or to Divination spells in general or to potentially 'game-breaking' utility spells such as Teleport or even wider (Save or Die, Save or Suck and so on). There is certainly a point at which it would go too far and the game would become too Focus focused (pun intended) - I don't really know yet where that point lies.
|
|
How about the idea I posted above of requiring a Focus to cast Find the Path, where the Focus would have to be an object from the location Find the Path is trying to find. That way, the spell is still useful, but the characters have to get hold of that ancient weapon forged in the City that Sunk into the Sea (TM) to be able to use the spell to locate the city. Where that item is and who possesses it, of course, is up to the DM...
actually i liked that idea very much
that gives you a previous adventure and roleplayingloved it :)
That's assuming, I'm ever going to convert.
Of course. If you won't, the whole discussion is pretty pointless.
|
Spells in general, not just FTP.
The problem with alot of spells is that it isn't terribly realistic to make every single creature, object, item, and location, proof against every spell. You quickly run into the issue of "well, i shouldn't have ever -taken- that spell since apparently you never want it to work anyway".
Invisibility for example is a 2nd level spell that the vast majority of Creatures have no way to protect themselves against- much less its greater cousin. NPC's based off of PC races have even fewer defenses against it. While See invis has the same duration as Invisibility, even a high level caster will be hard pressed to keep it up all the time, on all the guards.. or even a few of the guards.
You can, of course, ward ever hallway with Invis Purge and give every guard a wand or the Perma form of See Invis- but again, you are then negating a spell entirely.
I think a lot of spells are available too soon for what they do. Invisibility is one such spell. I would personally make it 4th or even 5th level. Course Fireball should also be 5th level.
It seems to me there is no thought at all to the power level of a spell that does not do X dice damage. FTP should be a 9th level spell . Heck I would just make 10 levels and make it a 10th level spell.
Or better yet, 20 Character levels, so there are 20 Spell Tiers (enough with levels applying to six dozen different concepts). I'd also drop the current schools of magic and go more traditional, say Elemental, Illusion, Summoning, Enchanting...
But that is just me and would never make core.
|
|
Or better yet, 20 Character levels, so there are 20 Spell Tiers (enough with levels applying to six dozen different concepts).
That's something else Monte presented as a rules option in his Book of Experimental Might. I like the idea, but it was a change where I looked at the potential benefits and the level of change required, and decided not to adopt that one at this time. IMO, that would be a 'new edition' kind of change, not a 'point-release' kind of change.
to me and my gaming style the solution to this was always simple.
Its a cleric/druid divination.
Just like the spell divination, if the deity you happen to be asking to point the way to you doesn't consider it important, it isn't going to answer you. That's one spell lost. Furthermore, if it considers your inquiry to be pesky, you might end up being punished for asking, by means of a mechanic curse, as per the curse spell or in some other, dm improvised manner.
Of course, find the path is a bardic spell as well.
Well.
I always liked to believe bards don't really know what they're tapping into when they cast spells, who knows what false information the deity, power or ... chaotic existence that happens to answer this inquiry gives. Just maybe the bard will wish he never did ask that question.
--
IMO, dealing with this spell that way will make the players think twice before using such divinations, as well as make them think thrice before trusting the results from divinations from an uncertain source, such as those made by a non-divine spellcaster (as divine spellcasters should rarely get false information from their deity. It kills the deity's reputation and few deities would go there.)
Lets not look at Find the Path from an adventure-design perspective for a moment (that's been gone over enough) and start looking at it though a world-design perspective.
In a world with Find the Path, lost cities DON'T EXIST. It might be fair for an 11th level character to just know where the thieves' guild is. I don't agree, but it might just be. However, 11th level NPCs, though rare, do exist, and some of them work for groups like the Pathfinders, and they will rapidly act to uncover every lost city whose name is known.
I think the current version of the spell is suitable, if a focus is required in the form of an object from the desired destination. Thus, a genuine Atlantean artifact is needed to find them, for instance, or a gem known to be from El Dorado. This makes Find the Path a much more interesting effect, with a suitable reward for the effort spent.
And like the attuned forks needed for Plane Shift, it allows the DM a little bit of control over more esoteric locations.