Scrying - Does it have to be a problem spell?

[Henry]

It never caused problems for me because of two things:

1) There were PHB spells which stopped the tactic cold whenever I really needed it to -- Forbiddance and Screen. Either one works to do this.

2) I devised situations where buff scry teleport were absolutely needed to complete the party's task.
Mayor: "Oh, great heroes, help find my kidnapped daughter!! The titles/wealth/commissions you seek are yours if you do!!"
Wizard: "Of course, sir." *scries while the party rests and prepares*
Wizard: "Oh, HELLS! Guys, the mayor's daughter is hanging over a lava pit with eleven other sacrifices RIGHT NOW!"
Fighter: "What?"
Wizard: "There's a priest and he's chanting and it doesn't look good! There's about three Hezrous and four Glabrezus there in addition to the cultists! My Arcane knowledge tells me he's about one minute from completing the ritual! We gotta go NOW!!!"

3) I occasionally had unknown parties scrying on the group. They'd occasionally spot a sensor, and get rid of it, or they'd get evidence that someone's been using divinations with them as the subject, and they'd never find out exactly who it was. It definitely keeps them on their toes, even if nothing ever comes of the scrying...

 

[Rex Blunder]

no spells are problem spells if the DM is experienced enough to handle them in the campaign and he/she thinks about what to do about them before allowing them in the campaign, if they do/do not desire.

YAY! Fixed!

There are no problems in D&D!

 

[The Little Raven]

YAY! Fixed!

There are no problems in D&D!

Yeah, because of the "Good DM" clause, you don't have to worry about your mechanics totally sucking, since you're assuming that the DM will fix them while playing! The very height of game design!

 

[Henry]

Yeah, because of the "Good DM" clause, you don't have to worry about your mechanics totally sucking, since you're assuming that the DM will fix them while playing! The very height of game design!

Exactly! Glad to see you've come around to the right conclusion!

Seriously, though, I can certainly understand the problem with assuming a "good DM" will fix a problem mechanic -- it assumes there will be a "good DM" always available to every group, which isn't the case. However, it still doesn't look like all of the "problem mechanics" will be removed; flight, resurrections, etc. will all still be in the game, in fact, just bumped up further in level. Which still means you need a DM able to understand and work with those mechanics in the games he or she's running, it will just be further up the level chain that they kick in.

My problem is when people try to remove too much stuff in order to fix a given problem; taken to its extreme, you have none of the flavor you started with, and a game that's too boring through overcorrection, which is as bad as a game which relies too much on "just make up all the rules as you go." I'm trusting in Mearls, Wyatt, Heinsoo, et al, that they have struck that balance between "game designer GM" and "tic tac toe."

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, because of the "Good DM" clause, you don't have to worry about your mechanics totally sucking, since you're assuming that the DM will fix them while playing! The very height of game design!

Yup. Straw DM, gotta love it.

One of the things I love about 4E is that the designers have finally understood that a spell with no direct combat utility whatsoever can still be horribly broken.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yeah, a good DM can make up for bad rules, but it's better if he doesn't have to. Anything that makes the DM's job easier is good as far as I'm concerned. Requiring a material component related to the target fixes the major beef I've had with scrying, that it can reveal too much information for too little effort. This places the usefulness of the spell under the control of the DM without forcing him to arbitrarily place magic wards and mind blanks on every BBEG.

 

[KingCrab]

"The titles/wealth/commissions you seek are yours if you do!!"

I have to that quote next time I run a game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Scry + teleport + true strike + diamond nightmare blade --> dead lich in 1 round is great fun, ONCE.

How about this:

Scy-Buff-Teleport - Wizard Attack 11
You crush your opposition by magically scrying them, preparing the party, and then teleport to them.
Once-In-A-Lifetime - Arcane
<snip>

 

[Fallen Seraph]

One thing they could do, is have some sort of fluff-oriented rule. Say... The magic released during a ritual resides in the area for a extended period of time (which would be neat on its own, if your tracking say a group of cultist perform rituals through a city with Detect Magic on the residual magic) interferes with any immediate rituals in the same area.

Thus, you wouldn't be able to, go Scry + Buff + Teleport. Since well either it wouldn't work, or the rituals would screw up and you blow yourselves up.

 

[arscott]

One think I will note about the "Good DM" conundrum:

It's an obvious design error to assume that a Good DM will exist in order to deal with troublesome rules.

But in certain cases, improving the rules isn't the only solution in the game designer's toolbox. In certain cases (Scrying is a good example), the designers should be focusing on improving the DM.