Reaper Miniatures
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, Reaper sells figures with a license or support or something of Pathfinder.
Pathfinder sells figures.
It's a license. Looks like a Drivers License, has Seltiyel's picture on it, and also allows us to drink in any pub on Golarion. Gets us a discount in any of Golarion's fine Illusion Theaters, where I believe they are showing Conan 3-D this weekend...
|
Well put, and I agree.
So it's not difficult to stop, but it just seems like it just generates a lot of contrived effort just to go right back to where we started (other than the magic item identification which I am fine with).
+1
Of course just to play devil's advocate - that's sorta how the whole system works:
See AC vs Attack bonus works:
you raise your AC
I raise my attack bonuses
we gain a level
you raise your AC bonuses
I raise my attack bonuses.
I still need a 10 to hit you at 15th level. I needed a 10 to hit you when I was second.
Can't we just go back to 14 AC and +4 to hit? the math was SO much easier...... :-)
Save DC vs REF save......
Robert
|
Any caster with half a brain quickly realizes, that aside from extraordinary or contrived circumstances, that it is generally best just to have it on constantly.
If a GM doesn't punish this in some way, he is not playing smart...what, your party wizard or cleric is gonna stop every minute to chant a spell? Everyone is gonna get annoyed by that in a few minutes.
Alot of posters indicate the time required to successfully use Detect Magic as a detractor - because it gives time for random encounters etc. Adventuring parties being vulnerable to so many attracted creatures etc.
I for one, and many other GMs I know, find repeated use of random monsters to be a catch 22 and often not worth the time invested in resolving the conflict.
Arbitrarily (or randomly rolling every round) a chance for an encounter brings with it it's own series of challenges in a meta-gaming sense.
It balloons the xp, causing characters to advance too quickly, hell some munchkin players might use DM just to attact them to GET the xp; not that I would allow this - but I know similar strategies have been tried. Frequent random encounters slows the game to a crawl, DMs are not nearly as prepared for them, and in the end, nothing is really resolved towards the actual story/quest that they're on. Players are merely forced into that 15 minute adventuring day schtick; only to return the next day to pick up where they were, detecting magic at will and bringing forth more random encounters. Rinse repeat.
And please dont reposte with: "Well I don't use XP charts - i just advance them when I feel like it so random encounters don't effect that." Cuz that in and of itself is a "house rule" deviation from RAW. So one way or the other - something is changed - whether it's the xp and advancement (for any number of reasons) or that spell and possibly a few others) for a number of different reasons.
For some, there are enough valid reasons to change the XP advancement regimen. For some the relative power level of Detect Magic and other spells is enough of a reason to alter it. For some the frequent inconviences of frequent random encounters is enough to prefer some changes. Personally I changed Detect Magic, I strongly limit my number of "random encounters" I instead spend a lot of time on plot-driving story based important ones, and I do not use xp charts; advancing characters as the story...
It doesn't necessarily add random encounters; what it does is make the encounters you plan on having tougher for the party to get the initiative on because the monsters already know the party is coming, and can prepare, while the party might know they aren't alone, but because of the lack of stealth, are more likely to have someone waiting for them to trigger the nasty traps, or stop to disable it, which serves as just as good a distraction, or stumble into an ambush rather than be the ones setting up the ambush.
EDIT: It has the ironic effect of ultimately making the party more reactive, because their attempts to be proactive will ultimately destroy their ability to stealth.
|
|
It doesn't necessarily add random encounters; what it does is make the encounters you plan on having tougher for the party to get the initiative on because the monsters already know the party is coming, and can prepare, while the party might know they aren't alone, but because of the lack of stealth, are more likely to have someone waiting for them to trigger the nasty traps, or stop to disable it, which serves as just as good a distraction, or stumble into an ambush rather than be the ones setting up the ambush.
EDIT: It has the ironic effect of ultimately making the party more reactive, because their attempts to be proactive will ultimately destroy their ability to stealth.
Well said and good point.
I'll concede that.
Still I think the best recent point that was made was that the spell used to be used in important situations and everyone was okay with that.
Now it's just too easy to use it at will and what it can do for the group and the game (as written).
Instead of having to "upgrade" the surroundings like a neverending game of hackers vs antivirus protection all the time so as to re-limit its effectiveness, it's much more streamlined and convenient (for my group) to limit the spell a bit.
I personally feel Paizo should have done this. Whether or not they agree and if that will be on the chopping block for a future Pathfinder upgrade is unknown.
Robert
Still I think the best recent point that was made was that the spell used to be used in important situations and everyone was okay with that.
My group was never "okay" with it. Used to bug us no end to finish an encounter, cast detect magic, then run into another unexpected encounter and have to carry around a bunch of unidentified stuff until the next day because we didn't know what was valuable and what was junk.
Of course, that was in conjuction with the "it takes an hour and costs 100 gold to identify anything" rule that we always handwaved away. :P
|
Instead of having to "upgrade" the surroundings like a neverending game of hackers vs antivirus protection all the time so as to re-limit its effectiveness, it's much more streamlined and convenient (for my group) to limit the spell a bit.
I personally feel Paizo should have done this. Whether or not they agree and if that will be on the chopping block for a future Pathfinder upgrade is unknown.
I agree, and as I said above, I don't really care what the limit is, I just need one to be there for my sanity. As others have said, wouldn't you get hoarse eventually?
Is 10/day too few? Make it 20. Maybe make it $castingstat times per day. Doesn't really matter to me so long as we change the psychology of it being without limit.
I found that my group stopped the constant Detect Magic after the second dungeon i ran them through that contained no aura's. They quickly realized that as the DM i wasn't gonna let them waltz down the hallways in Detective mode from Batman the whole game.
|
|
I found that my group stopped the constant Detect Magic after the second dungeon i ran them through that contained no aura's. They quickly realized that as the DM i wasn't gonna let them waltz down the hallways in Detective mode from Batman the whole game.
Effective. A bit heavy handed; but effective.
I find there's a significant amount of room for some middle ground.
As for McBobbo's, instead of trying to find a "limitation" to the number of times per day, try combining most of the effects of Detect w/ Identify; and its suddenly a 1st level spell and not spammable.
If you also limit Detect Magic to detecting an aura on an object in visual range (not through walls, etc) at say 5', 10', 30' etc, distance, then I think you'll find you can live with it being spammed.
In such a case, a player cant prowl all the halls checking behind every door, false wall, chest etc, and if he really wants to detect magic on every item a BBEG is wearing at the beginning of the fight, he'll have to point to each object seperately and cast it 10 times or so.
Meanwhile Identify can be the "Detect Magic" that we know of in the Core Rules (cone area, through barriers, etc) PLUS it grants the bonus towards appraising an object.
Like I've said before - now that ID doesn't have the pesky casting time, and expensive material component, I don't see the problem combining it's current ability with something else. The fact that you need to cast Detect Magic to identify just solidifies my stand that the two could be combined in effects.
In fact I'm willing to go so far as to say that Identify is actually the spell out of the two that should be the zero level "spammable" spell. (going by spell descriptions as written in the book).
Robert
|
|
In such a case, a player cant prowl all the halls checking behind every door, false wall, chest etc, and if he really wants to detect magic on every item a BBEG is wearing at the beginning of the fight, he'll have to point to each object seperately and cast it 10 times or so.
Hey, as the sometimes GM who will act the part of the BBEG, I do not mind that the caster of the group spends 4 standard actions looking at my magical bling-bling while I am carving his fellow PCs in small neat pieces.
This way, when he remembers that he could actually cast something useful for combat, he will realize that he is standing alone in my threat range with his partners' blood staining his robes.
|
|
Alot of posters indicate the time required to successfully use Detect Magic as a detractor - because it gives time for random encounters etc. Adventuring parties being vulnerable to so many attracted creatures etc.
I for one, and many other GMs I know, find repeated use of random monsters to be a catch 22 and often not worth the time invested in resolving the conflict.
Arbitrarily (or randomly rolling every round) a chance for an encounter brings with it it's own series of challenges in a meta-gaming sense.
I do not think that the problem lies in more random encounters. IMO, the main drawbacks in spending too long exploring a hostile place is :
1) you are losing precious time when you are acting under a specific deadline (ie, save the princess before the sun sets).
2) you are giving far more opportunities for your opponents to realize that they are under attack and more time to prepare a well thought-out strategy to kill you.
Continual use of DM will slow you down, at the minimum, to 60' every 2 rounds in a place with zero magical auras (1 round casting, 1 round detecting nothing) and to 60' every 4 rounds in a place with at least one aura. And those are the best movement rate you can hope for, as many times you will need to concentrate facing different directions (for example in a wide room that cannot be covered completely within a 60' cone).
Considering that average speed in a combat situation is 60' every round, using DM continuously indeed makes it a dungeon crawl
Instead of having to "upgrade" the surroundings like a neverending game of hackers vs antivirus protection all the time so as to re-limit its effectiveness, it's much more streamlined and convenient (for my group) to limit the spell a bit.
So I get the impression that Magic Aura and Arcane Mark are mostly ignored in your games?
I don´t find it that difficult to actually use them as written: any Caster who can spare 1 1st-level slot/day can conceal their own magic aura plus 6 other objects on a permanent/sustainable basis. And as mentioned, the multitude of ways that Detect Magic´s results can be mis-leading (entire room Illusioned not just single object, ´illusion´ aura that looks like it´s covering door... actually a lure to a mundane trap, etc), so while Detect Magic as Cantrip is still useful, it´s hardly a swiss army knife for every situation, and the fact you are spending 3 rounds is already a pretty signifigant down-turn. Any ´defensive´ force facing the PCs can take advantage of the PCs stopping for 3 rounds every room to scan for auras.Basically, it just seems like ´it´s easier´ for some groups to keep running under their 3.5 premises, rather than look at PRPG and use it as it´s own game, with it´s own dynamics. And if that results in the best game for you, go for it... I just don´t think the rules are broken because it isn´t the exact same as 3.5.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any caster with half a brain quickly realizes, that aside from extraordinary or contrived circumstances, that it is generally best just to have it on constantly.
I think people are missing a few key issues with casting detect magic over and over.
1. It has verbal and somatic components, so your wizard is walking around waving his arms and talking to himself constantly...being sneaky isn't going to work.
2. It is a standard action, meaning you only get a move action each round you use it, so the party is slower and if something attacks you have already used your standard action that round, so bye bye initiative.
3. In the first round all you detect is "Presence or absence of magical auras." so when you get within 60 feet of something magical, you will be aware you are with 60 feet of something magical...which will also know where you are since your flailing about chanting.
4. In the second round, you still don't know where that magical thing is, just "Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura."
5. If by the third round the invisible thing hasn't attacked you (since you still don't know what or where it is) then it probably isn't going to. And if it is anything of any value, they probably should have put it in a lead lined box.
Grab an AP, sit down and imagine how it will play out with your wizard walking around chanting and flailing near the front of the party so he can find phat lootz....good luck with that...
I've searched the whole thread and no one has mentioned it but... doesnt' Magic Aura only work on objects? Non Detection specifically says creatures and objects, Magic Aura mentioned only objects.
Just saying. Might be quite hard to use a days/level Magic Aura to hide the fact YOU are under the effects of a spell (e.g. alter self), you will presumably have to use the much shorter L3 spell Non Detection.
Yes, you are correct, Magic Aura targets objects specifically. It's very easy to hide magic things, even ones you're wearing, but fairly difficult to mask magic that's targeting your person.
That said, I know being a ghost dragon and all, 4 years probably seems like the blink of an eye to you, but most of us mortals tend to forget about threads after, like, a month.
Who goes this hard on Detect Magic just doesn't know how to handle it
That said, I know being a ghost dragon and all, 4 years probably seems like the blink of an eye to you, but most of us mortals tend to forget about threads after, like, a month.
Well, I needed to let the various arguments sink in, mull them over in my own good time, and then, once everyone had assumed they had all the answers sorted, poke the ant hive a little with a well timed observation to see if all the small things would scurry around in that entertaining way they have.
What? Why are you looking at me like that? You'll think I'm entertaining when I have my own talk show, muttermuttersillymammalsmuttergrumble