Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Forrester" data-source="post: 329757" data-attributes="member: 1279">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.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.Okay, now this is stupid <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />. 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. 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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />. 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.</blockquote>

Verification