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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Renfield" data-source="post: 4319695" data-attributes="member: 13493">Wow, where I come from my fellow DM's would laugh at DM's who couldn't handle their PC's using scry in 3rd edition. But then as a DM I'm of the mindset that most of what was considered 'broken' in 3e wasn't actually. Scying, for instance, was easy to notice and easy to counter. It was also a very good way to advance the plot if people could actually stop looking at things that are useful to PC's as broken and actually look at them as advantages. Imagine this. You spend a precious hour of your time, use 31000 gp worth of resources and finally you manage to scry your foe, your long time nemesis, eager to learn something crucial about his next sinister plan and you even roll a natural twenty on your skill check so you can.... watch him drop a deuce for a whole 30 seconds? I'm sorry, but if people think that scrying is broken there are better ways to handle it than making it 31000gp and an hour casting time for all of 30 seconds worth of scrying.NOTE: My apologies if the comment seemed snide. An issue I've had with D&D since 3rd edition was the mentality that if something was useful it was obviously over powered and therefor must be changed for the sake of balance. I run games where the group knows it is not invincible and my players have been (for the most part) mature enough not to abuse the rules mainly because they knew it was a small matter to counter or make them wish they hadn't. Scrying was never something I considered over powered or a plot buster. I can see how some people can, but I don't think doing what they did to it was a good idea of even a well thought idea.</blockquote>

Verification