Divinations...something that has always irked me

[Fathead]

My gaming group is just now reaching the levels where divinations have started to become abusive (with access to spells like commune), and I realized that this has always been something that didn't sit right with me. I run a campaign that is fairly political...but in truth, in a world where divinations are common, it ruins a lot of high level intrigue. Spells like scrying, divination, commune, esp...and even augury, vastly decrease the chance of mystery or political intrigue.

Actually, beyond just talking about political intrigue, the spells can often limit the game itself. If a group of 7th level PCs upset a 14th level guildmaster who has access to a spellcaster, he could quickly track down the party, teleport to their location, and decimate the entire group.

So, I was wondering what other DMs do...have you imposed your own house rules limiting divinations?

 

[Pseudonym]

So, I was wondering what other DMs do...have you imposed your own house rules limiting divinations?

I don't so much restrict divinations via house rules, as have my NPCs take appropriate countermeasures. Several spells come to mind, such as detect scrying, nondetection and mindblank, along with amulets and what not that accomplish the same effect. Lead lined rooms for secret council meetings, double blind organizational cells to limit what and who people within an organization know; that sort of thing.

Sufficiently powerful or connected NPC tend to keep their own diviner on retainer as well.

On the flip side, if divinations are in common use amongst the PCs, I expect them to take their own countermeaures against my NPCs turning the tables on them.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

In my own opinion, in a world where divination spells are so common, spellcasters would load up on spells and items to counteract such spells. It takes a bit of forethought, but if the DM thinks about his world beforehand and how divination affects it, he could come up with a basic routine spellcasters (and others) would come up with to keep from being detected - spells most spellcasters always have prepared, buildings built to make scrying and such ineffective, etc. Anti-scrying devices and "divination shields" (for lack of a better term) would be more common than the basic game seems to indicate, is my guess EDIT: much as Pseudonym detailed above.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

There are two solutions that I use with spells like Communion.


1. Gods think in ways quite alien to us. They answer questions from their point of view and this sometimes can be consfusing or vague to players.

2. Gods are opposed by other Gods. So when the cleric communes with his deity Lord Bob there is a limit to what Bob can tell him because the evil god Dark Master Fred is actively opposing Bob.

 

[shilsen]

Read Piratecat's Story Hour for an excellent example of a high-level game with a DM who isn't scared of using divinations effectively and creatively. The average divination spell is either easy to circumvent or provides information which needs to be interpreted. A commune spell, for example, with the "Yes/No" answers, can be very misleading and requires considerable thought to utilize effectively. And just because an individual has information from a divination doesn't mean that anyone else is going to believe or act on it. Divinations actually add a lot of mystery and political intrigue to the game, IMO.

 

[Fathead]

I don't so much restrict divinations via house rules, as have my NPCs take appropriate countermeasures. Several spells come to mind, such as detect scrying, nondetection and mindblank, along with amulets and what not that accomplish the same effect. Lead lined rooms for secret council meetings, double blind organizational cells to limit what and who people within an organization know; that sort of thing.

Sufficiently powerful or connected NPC tend to keep their own diviner on retainer as well.

On the flip side, if divinations are in common use amongst the PCs, I expect them to take their own countermeaures against my NPCs turning the tables on them.

I've used nondetection before. Mindblank is a fairly high level spell, so that isn't used too often. I've used the amulets before, but I don't want to make them TOO common.

But, it all still falls apart in instances...take, for example, a murder mystery in the local tavern. One of the local patrons is suspect, and the PCs are asked to investigate. Alright, judicious use of ESP, and the PCs are home before dinner - no need to call in Sherlock Holmes on this one!

I've made up a whole slew of counter measures to protect secrets (anything from unique spells to magic items), but many of the divinations still seem fairly abusive to me.

In some cases, it is actually beneficial to my campaign that they use their divinations, because the plot had become so convoluted at points (simply because the PCs didn't connect everything together).

 

[Fathead]

In my own opinion, in a world where divination spells are so common, spellcasters would load up on spells and items to counteract such spells. It takes a bit of forethought, but if the DM thinks about his world beforehand and how divination affects it, he could come up with a basic routine spellcasters (and others) would come up with to keep from being detected - spells most spellcasters always have prepared, buildings built to make scrying and such ineffective, etc. Anti-scrying devices and "divination shields" (for lack of a better term) would be more common than the basic game seems to indicate, is my guess EDIT: much as Pseudonym detailed above.

This is one of my problems though - when I custom create "anti-scrying devices" and "divination shields", the players will argue that I'm being unfair and severly limiting the use of the divinations that they struggled so hard to earn. They feel that by inundating the campaign world with counter measures, I'm nullifying the worth of the spells.

 

[Fathead]

There are two solutions that I use with spells like Communion.


1. Gods think in ways quite alien to us. They answer questions from their point of view and this sometimes can be consfusing or vague to players.

2. Gods are opposed by other Gods. So when the cleric communes with his deity Lord Bob there is a limit to what Bob can tell him because the evil god Dark Master Fred is actively opposing Bob.

I've used this one as well. In fact, I've had IMMENSE fun with alignment. A player may not consider something "weal", but a god may if it suits his purposes.

But, those contortions are few and far between, and still doesn't save me from having commune questions asked...almost every gaming session now. Now, I COULD say that the God is tiring of the constant barrage of questions, but that would fall into the "house rule" category.

 

[shilsen]

But, it all still falls apart in instances...take, for example, a murder mystery in the local tavern. One of the local patrons is suspect, and the PCs are asked to investigate. Alright, judicious use of ESP, and the PCs are home before dinner - no need to call in Sherlock Holmes on this one!

Unless the PCs are also the authorities, their discovery of the murderer via ESP does little for them. All it does is establish that they know someone is the murderer. Now they have to find definitive material proof so that people would be willing to take their word for it. After all, remember that all they have is their claim that one of them cast a spell, "saw into someone's mind", and now knows that so-and-so is the murderer. That's hardly proof. It's the same problem as with a Detect Evil spell. Only the person casting the spell knows what he detects. Why would anyone else trust him?

 

[Fathead]

Unless the PCs are also the authorities, their discovery of the murderer via ESP does little for them. All it does is establish that they know someone is the murderer. Now they have to find definitive material proof so that people would be willing to take their word for it. After all, remember that all they have is their claim that one of them cast a spell, "saw into someone's mind", and now knows that so-and-so is the murderer. That's hardly proof. It's the same problem as with a Detect Evil spell. Only the person casting the spell knows what he detects. Why would anyone else trust him?

Once the murderer is discovered, it's all over from there...just interrogate the murderer, get all of the morbid details, and find all of the clues that would normally be there.

This isn't something that actually happened in one of my adventures, but it DID happen in another (in fact, I helped to bring this adventure to a very short end...a 4 hour event turned into a 20 minutes adventure).