times they are a changen....

[Forrester]

I see a couple of holes in your example. For one, using communes to find an agent in a place as big as a castle is probably impossible, so long as it isn't anyone high profile. There are hundreds of people in a castle between servants, staff and guards. Multiple agents make this even more interesting.

Okay, pick a number between 1 and 500. How many yes-no questions will you give me to determine the number you've picked?

Oh, wait, I don't need to blow a Commune if I really don't want to. I have Zone of Truth and Discern Lies -- and I'll order every guard, servant, and staff member to not resist. If they resist (and succeed on the save), I'll know, because I'm targeting an individual person. (Well, at least for Discern Lies.) Commune + Discern Lies is just about infallible for digging up agents. A shame.

In addition, the ability to use commune to find out Chumley's plan is only as good as your imagination. Maybe Chumley intends to summon a demon to take her out, or sneak in himself in the guise of a maid. As long as you can out-imagine the players and come up with a fun plan, they'll have a hard time guessing it.

Well, asking God whether Chumley plans to sneak in disguised obviously has to be on the list. But I agree that there are a lot of possibilities the PCs must consider. But the timing is assault is something that would be a lot tougher to cover up.

Don't forget that divinations aren't perfect. As soon as the bad guy changes his plan, previous divinations become invalid. The PCs may well act on old information.

. . .

Meanwhile, Chumley has been using his divinations too, of course. By doing so, he can find out what the PCs are up to and when it's safe for him to strike. Then he launches a diversionary attack, and grabs the queen while the PCs are distracted saving her. *shrug* I can think of a dozen ways to make this adventure challenging and fun, divinations or no.

Okay, now this is stupid . First, we must note that without the cheaty Commune, Chumley is indeed screwed -- meaning that no assassin anywhere can ever hope to succeed without regular discussions with God. This seems a bit . . . forced. It also comes down to a battle of who cast the LAST Commune, which seems odd. It will also lead to questions like

"Is Chumley Communing with his God daily? Is he changing his plans every time he determines that I am Communing with you?" and so on and so forth. The idea that these great dieties have nothing better to do than act as a crib sheet for all of their medium-to-high level followers buggers the imagination, IMO.

Is it a low-level, divination-free who-done-it? Nope. But whether or not your example is flawed by predicating the use of super-high-level divinations, it can still be a fun time for the players and the DM. And really, that's what I'm interested in, not reaching some sort of "perfect who-done-it" adventure concept.

I know you disagree with me, but I look at the high level group in my game right now. Do divinations ruin the game? No, they make it better. Are the players having fun? Yes. Am I? Yes. Are there still lots of surprises? Yes. So the horror story you depict just isn't realistic, at least not with my group.

I'm not begrudging those who can just wink and nod at Commune and deal with the weirdness. I'm aware that many other DMs -- most, even -- are less interested in versimilitude than I am. You were the one, Piratecat, who ran an encounter in which the Bad Guys tied babies to their fronts and backs before engaging the party in combat, weren't you? .

Not what I'd call ENTIRELY realistic . . . I would probably have had the Bad Guys write the PCs a little note about how these kids would have their souls sacrificed to some dark demon if the PCs didn't turn in their magic items at the nearest Dark Temple, but you went with the Baby Knapsack approach. It sounds like it was a lot of fun, and I'm sure your party enjoyed it. I doooon't think it would be QUITE realistic enough for my campaign, though.

You have to admit that endless Communes can cause a lot of problems in some campaigns, and that no DM should feel forced to let the party play twenty questions with God on a regular basis just because the PHB says that it should be so. I'm glad that you've made it work for your group, but I don't see why, for instance, Loki's DM should feel obligated to make it work for HIS group.

 

[Piratecat]

Now now, Forrester. There were only three babies, and they were tied to their fronts. Who ever heard of a bad guy tying a baby to their front AND their back? Sheesh, that's not realistic at all, I agree.

But your example remains specious. I could weasel out of the zone of truth and discern lies trick without a second thought, as could any DM.

Anyways, your assertion that an intelligent bad guy will change his actions based on a divination is "stupid" makes me laugh - on the contrary, it strikes me as both realistic and reasonable. Remember, the PCs don't necessarily know that the bad guy has changed his plans - why should they? So the battling divinations probably wouldn't happen, and if it does, you run with it. This doesn't affect verisimillitude at all. I'd guess that it does conflict with the image you have for a campaign setting, but that's two totally separate things.

I'm glad that you've made it work for your group, but I don't see why, for instance, Loki's DM should feel obligated to make it work for HIS group.

Because that's how the game is written and meant to be played? Because a lot of people find it fun and challenging? It seems to me that insisting or urging that it be played differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer, is a much shakier stance. I'm not denigrating a lower magic or lower divination world, as I think they'd probably be fun too, but when the system as written is (at least to me) clearly workable and fun, insisting that divinations are inherently bad or game-breaking for everyone seems to be simply incorrect.

 

[Forrester]

But your example remains specious. I could weasel out of the zone of truth and discern lies trick without a second thought, as could any DM.

. . .

Anyways, your assertion that an intelligent bad guy will change his actions based on a divination is "stupid" makes me laugh - on the contrary, it strikes me as both realistic and reasonable. Remember, the PCs don't necessarily know that the bad guy has changed his plans - why should they?

. . .

(re my question on why Loki's DM should feel obligated to try to make Commune work for his group):

Because that's how the game is written and meant to be played? Because a lot of people find it fun and challenging? It seems to me that insisting or urging that it be played differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer, is a much shakier stance.

Re the first paragraph -- you might be able to work around Discern Lies, but Discern Lies + Detect Magic, or especially Discern Lies + Commune . . . I am highly skeptical . Perhaps you want to share your brilliance?

Re the second -- I didn't mean to imply that he would be stupid to change his actions based on divination, just that it seems stupid to me to have a big Commune contest where the last person to cast Commune wins. If the PCs cast it last (likely, unless you've been nice enough to give Chumley an 12th level+ cleric as an ally), they'll know.

Re the third -- here we have the problem. This "meant to be played" nonsense makes my blood boil. According to you, the game was "meant to be played" with Whirlwind/Cleave/Bag o' Snails. The game was "meant to be played" with Tanglefoot bags that slow Tarrasques to half-speed with a successful ranged touch attack. The game was "meant to be played" with Harm having no save.

I mean, listen to yourself! I am not the one saying that every DM should change Commune. YOU are the one agreeing that Loki's DM should be feel obligated to keep all of the spells the way they are!

I'm not insisting that it be played differently. You (and your "ilk" ) are insisting that it be played the same. I'm not urging that it be played differently . . . you are urging that the DM change his campaign to handle Battling Communes and the tactical possibilities of bags of snails.

I'm not the gaming fascist here, PC.

 

[Piratecat]

Eh. The thing with you, Forrester, is you're possibly one of the stubbornnest men I know, and you delight in using loaded phrases to try and make your point. That doesn't make me like you any less, but it does make trying to discuss things with you irritating. Gaming fascists? Urging? Obligated? Bags of snails? "Meant to be played"? Yeah, right. When you stop trying to tell me what I think, maybe it'll be interesting to discuss this with you.

You don't want to play with my gaming style, and I don't want to play with yours. I think I'll leave it at that, because I don't believe you're keeping an open mind on the subject, and I really have no vested interest in convincing you.

If you actually are interested in discussing this further with me, drop me an email and I'll craftily let you buy me a beer. Other than that, feel free to carry on - politely!

 

[Desdichado]

Because that's how the game is written and meant to be played? Because a lot of people find it fun and challenging? It seems to me that insisting or urging that it be played differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer, is a much shakier stance. I'm not denigrating a lower magic or lower divination world, as I think they'd probably be fun too, but when the system as written is (at least to me) clearly workable and fun, insisting that divinations are inherently bad or game-breaking for everyone seems to be simply incorrect.

Is anyone insisting that the game be played differently? My stance, and the one I seem to be reading here, is that the game's designers are the ones insisting that the game be played a certain way, and even in the book that purports to be the book of "options" we are strongly urged not to change anything.

Doesn't mean it can't be fun, and I'd guess you'd almost be the poster-child of high-level good gaming, but the style really rubs me the wrong way, and to be told in a core rulebook that I shouldn't change that style is profoundly irritating. Like I said, when I first read that passage, it made me laugh out loud incredulously that they would actually say that (I think I was sitting in my car for a lunch break, so laughing out loud as fine! )

On the other hand, I'm certainly insisting that divinations are bad for my game. I don't enjoy crafting such odd, forced and contrived scenarios as you describe just to accomodate the spells that are completely out of whack with the game worlds as described. Either the setting needs to change dramatically to accomodate the fact that these abilities exist, or the abilities need to be modified to fit into the campaign setting. D&D missed the boat, IMO, and aligning character abilities with the campaign settings described. For homebrew worlds, it's even more essential that this exercise be done, yet we are told in the DMG that we shouldn't do it.

 

[Forrester]

Eh. The thing with you, Forrester, is you're possibly one of the stubbornnest men I know, and you delight in using loaded phrases to try and make your point. That doesn't make me like you any less, but it does make trying to discuss things with you irritating. Gaming fascists? Urging? Obligated? Bags of snails? "Meant to be played"? Yeah, right. When you stop trying to tell me what I think, maybe it'll be interesting to discuss this with you.

I'm not telling you what you think, I'm just using the words that you used, bucky! Well, at least some of them. Words like "meant to be played", "urging", and "the".

Seriously, you implied that I was "insisting and urging" that it be played differently . . . I'm not. I'm "insisting and urging" that Loki's DM be cut some slack, that he not feel obligated to make Commune work for his campaign.

According to your 2nd to last post, you seem to disagree. Of course, I seem to have a way of making some people take a more extreme position than they otherwise might, just bcs they want to argue against me. I have noooo idea why that might be . But it sure seems silly to me.

We don't have to continue this discussion here, but I may, just MAY have craftily been talked into buying you a beer in the next week or two. Hmph!

 

[Piratecat]

Clarification: when I said "It seems to me that insisting or urging that it be played differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer," I meant "It seems to me that insisting or urging that other people play it differently, just because that happens to be a campaign style which you prefer." Sorry if this led to any misunderstandings. I think people should make all the changes they want in their own games; I'm a little iffier about folks trumpeting their house rules as gospel for everyone else to use. I think, like everyone else, that I don't want someone else to tell me how to game.

Joshua, I don't think that passage is meant for DMs who take into account spells that they don't like and build their campaign worlds without them. That sort of verisimillitude is great, because it's predictable and consistent. Instead, it's meant for DMs who suddenly try to nerf abilities as soon as the PCs get them. The DM who tried to outlaw Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is a great example.

Do you see this differentiation too, or is it something that I'm reading into that passage in the DMG?

 

[Piratecat]

I may, just MAY have craftily been talked into buying you a beer in the next week or two. Hmph!

(Brushes dust off of hands)

My work here is done.

 

[LokiDR]

Home brew worlds are, IMO, a completely different issue than "standard" games. If you ever run moduals without changing the written material, you are running a standard game. If you never use published moduals, or you change them to fit your world, then the question of whether commune should be allowed as written doesn't even come up. You are either following the written material or you aren't. All I would care would be that I know which you are doing and be consulted if I am a player and you want to switch.

Any person who claims to follow the rules and then changes them at whim is worse than a hypocrite. I NEVER said that anything HAD to be included. I resent being represented that way.

Tanglefoot bags that slow Tarrasques to half-speed is also a very different scale than commune. The former is a rather silly extension of an item that probably should have been written to cover the case. It makes no sense in any sort of world. Commune makes sense in many worlds. I don't care if you like it Forrester, but it does fit many games. If it doesn't fit your game, fine. Every group should make that choice.

I will never "cut slack" for a DM who is on an ego trip. My position still is that the rules were written with some fair amount of thought and work (though they certainly aren't perfect ). No rule, spell, combo, item, or otherwise should be ignored, nerfed, or re-writen out of hand. Cut some slack for the designers.

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua, I don't think that passage is meant for DMs who take into account spells that they don't like and build their campaign worlds without them. That sort of verisimillitude is great, because it's predictable and consistent. Instead, it's meant for DMs who suddenly try to nerf abilities as soon as the PCs get them. The DM who tried to outlaw Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion is a great example.

Do you see this differentiation too, or is it something that I'm reading into that passage in the DMG?

Right, killing abilities after the fact is just plain bad, and I can see how that leads to real resentment problems in the case of players. But as for that particular passage, I'm not quite sure which it refers to. The implication still seems to be that character abilities are inviolable. Obviously, that's not advice that I'm going to be following, but it's pretty strongly laid out, I think.