Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5514149" data-attributes="member: 18280">I will agree that this could be a problem, especially in slower-playing games, such as 3e.  OTOH, if you follow the guidelines in 3e, almost anyone can gain some form of non-detection device that should prevent your (B).The first sentence is correct (but, as a reply to the meme that it takes magical GM handwaving to deal with the problem, it shouldn't).  The second sentence is wrong.  Consequences to using magic, and magic not simply solving the problem (but adding a layer of complexity/decision points) does make magic less gamebreaking.BTW, in your examples of the "real Dark Ages":  In the feudal system, the Count is the vassal of the King, and owes him both allegiance and military duty.  The King is always making sure that the Count cannot amass too much power, while at the same time making sure that the Count has power enough to fulfill his obligations.  Again, rather like the mafia in The Godfather.The Count's ambition is always to raise his own standard; the King knows this, and the Count knows that the King knows this.Unless the Count is a problem to the King, though, it is never in the King's interests to take him out.  For this reason, in the real Dark Ages, as in any place in the world right now where similar conditions apply, the Count really can and does get away with murder.  He doesn't even have to hide it; he just has to avoid broadcasting too loudly so as to become a problem to the King.Conversely, if the Count is a problem to the King, it doesn't matter that he is guilty.  It only matters that justice seems to be done, so that other nobles don't rebel, while everyone knows that the Count has paid the price for his actions, so that other nobles don't get ideas.In such a scenario, the Count isn't the killer.  The killer is in the King's employ, and has disguised himself as the Count.  Either he fooled the horse or, in a D&D world, the horse is in the King's employ as well.Obviously.And, it should be equally obvious, you should seek a game and a magic system with which you are comfortable.I am not saying that people do not experience these sorts of problems; I am saying that people do not necessarily experience these sorts of problems.  They are an artifact of the convergence of the ruleset and playstyle expectations, where the two do not harmonize.When that happens, it is a lot smarter to change the ruleset than play in a way you do not enjoy.BUT that doesn't mean that a ruleset that meshes with your playstyle expectations is going to mesh with mine.Options are good.  Dogmatism about what options should exist, IMHO at least, is not.Sorry, but that doesn't follow.  One can have a system Significantly less than 50%, if memory serves.  But, by your definition of "autowin", I am not at all convinced that "the non-casters get ZERO autowins ever."  After all, in EVERY case in the Moathouse, the magic-user must not be surprised, and must get his spell off before he is struck in combat.Here's a few things.(1)  Your "pretty specific" alignment rules do not say "If you lie to protect a murder you KNOW is guilty, then you become Evil").  As a point of fact, they say nothing remotely close to that.(2)  The King has no way of knowing whether or not the clerics are actually casting the spell.  It is entirely possible that they simply do not, and lie about that, because they do not want to know.(3)  It is also possible that the cleric's freaking GOD wants them to protect the Count, because the Count is integral to his own plans (unknowable to mortals) or because he also talked to the Count, and told the Count to commit the murder.(4)  If protecting a murderer that you KNOW is guilty makes one Evil, then I am guessing that most PCs are evil.  (5)  In fact, an argument can be made that, if the clerics believe that the Count was justified and/or necessary to the stability of the kingdom (i.e., a necessary evil), that they are obligated to lie.  Likewise, if the clerics know that telling the truth condemns the Count to death, and actions directly leading to the death of another (sanctity of life and all that being a Good trait) are forbidden by their religion.(6)  The clerics, of course, could simply be Neutral.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />  Then you might want to brush up on the rules.Absolutely sure about that, are you?  Under which version of the rules?You presume too much.  I've played plenty of bog-standard 1e, 2e, and 3e.  With the exception of mentioning what is happening in my campaign right now, where divination magic exceeds that of 3e and still causes no problem, I haven't stepped out of bog standard D&D at all.  And, because the example is one in which the level of divination exceeds that of bog-standard D&D, the fact that it causes no problems in play is relevant to the question of whether or not such magic must damage play. OTOH, you are right about one thing:  If a ruleset doesn't mesh well with your playstyle assumptions, you should change rulesets to one that does.  Even if you have to build it yourself.How very "Boom, crush. Night, losers. Winning, duh." of you.AFAICT, you are making a claim that taking NPC motivations and resources into account is a violation of the rules?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />  Please tell me, specifically, what I have said that violates the rules, Hussar.  I await your wisdom with bated breath.Using a ruleset wisely is not a violation thereof.RC</blockquote>

Verification