Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 330701" data-attributes="member: 151">That's what the PHB is for, not the DMG.  The 3E DMG is, IMHO, the first one to actually discuss how to run a game effectively.  I consider it a monumental success in actually giving out salient advice (particularly coming from veterans who've had combined decades of experience on the topic).  The DMG is not an island, it the second of three books, and should be regarded as such.I'm curious, though, on whether Joshua and Forrester are considering Epic games, and if so, how they plan to approach them.  Whlie I see nothing wrong with the current approach that they are advocating, I'm curious when players get to open some of the forbidden fruits, if ever.  If a 20th level cleric can't get a direct line to his diety, who can?I guess I see some of this as a splitting-hairs kind of issue.  There are so many things in D&D that don't hold up under scrutiny, that you have to draw a line at some point and say 'this is a balanced game, not a simulation of an alternate reality', and sacrifice some degree of verisimilitude.  I know Forrester and I have already agreed to disagree over some such topics, such as the availability of magic items, for example.  I suppose this will be another.  I've yet to see spells like Commune unbalance my game or even help the players as much as you might think.  Part of this may have to do with the fact that they are more reluctant to 'take one for the team' xp-wise.  I know my wizard is feeling the pinch now, being a level behind almost everyone else, due to item creation.  The cleric has little to desire to use the ability, especially given it's vague and sometimes unhelpful nature.  As for the 'commune' game (and I realize we're talking about more than this single spell, mind you, I'm just using this for an example): the reason it's unreliable for prediction into the future is that it's too general, and a god cannot forsee the results of the intervention of another god, IMC.  If they could, then they entire game would be a preplayed chess game, which would be frustrating for the players.  If you assume that the gods know exactly what WILL happen, then we're back to those 'where do you draw the line for verisimilitude' issues.   Recently, my players used Commune to ask if performing a certain action would protect a certain location from attacks for two particular enemies.  Confident from the 'yes' answer, they're about to discover the limitations of that answer, and of the mechanic of commune itself.For me, it seems like removing these spells is taking candy away from the players.  When a character claws his way up to 16th level, he should be scarily powerful, IMHO.  A 16th level cleric is a living saint, AFAIC, and if he can't get the attention of a Solar for a little advice, then who can?  I don't have a problem with folks running their game differently, or feeling that the core rules got it wrong.  My only contention is with any belief that the core rules don't work without making this change, when it's clear that they do.</blockquote>

Verification