The Pursuit of Equality and Balance in Game Design

[Username17]

If I'm a bad guy, and I know a group of purely melee people are coming to ruin my day, why wouldn't I hand some bows to my flying monkeys?

Because your Flying Monkeys are 4e monsters, so the rules break down if you give them bows. And I don't just mean "the PCs lose and cry and then everyone is sad because only the Bowazon of the standard 4e characters even has a weapon that can hit things flying at bow ranges", I mean that the actual rules break down. Monsters don't have calcuable to-hit or damage bonuses when you give them different weapons because their to-hit bonuses and weapon damages are not derived from the attributes, level, or weapons. Monsters have entirely arbitrary attack and damage stats, so if you give a monster a weapon it did not already have you have to write a new monster.

That is not a joke. That is how 4e monsters actually work.

-Username17

[Novembermike]

If I'm a bad guy, and I know a group of purely melee people are coming to ruin my day, why wouldn't I hand some bows to my flying monkeys?

Because I'm the DM, not the bad guy and I want the players to have fun (and they won't have fun shooting at flying shit with their +0 bows). If I feel like railroading the players (which I'm not a fan of) it seems like a decent way to force them to go/not go somewhere.

Of course, if we have perfectly logical bad guys then we might as well have them send a level 16 minion to kill the players when they're still level 3 to keep the obviously talented but inexperienced adventurers from becoming a threat.

Hi Welcome

It's not a straw man, it's an actual argument you actually said.

Provide the quote then. Shouldn't be hard if I said it.

EDIT: Frank, you do understand why that is, right? Monsters are balanced for a certain level. If you start altering that, there's no promise that the monster will still be balanced at that level. If you're comfortable messing with the system a bit you can give your flying monkey a bow, sure, but it isn't really recommended that amateurs mess around with with the mechanics (I think your attempt at making a class adequately showed why this can be a bad idea).

[Username17]

Hi Welcome

It's not a straw man, it's an actual argument you actually said.

Provide the quote then. Shouldn't be hard if I said it.

Dude, you just said it. You know, again. Seriously, what the fuck:

but the actual argument was that you shouldn't set up a level appropriate encounter full of flying ranged attackers when the party can't effectively deal with it (ie. all melee characters with no bows or flight).

Do you not see how this is in fact exactly what Roy just said?

Flight is a plot power, and you totally should never have the party fight winged opponents, because they're completely helpless against such foes!

That's the same fucking thing. You just objected when Roy said you said A, and "corrected" him that you had actually said... A. A == A. You're just wall of text arguing at this point.

-Username17

[Novembermike]

Hi Welcome

It's not a straw man, it's an actual argument you actually said.

Provide the quote then. Shouldn't be hard if I said it.

Dude, you just said it. You know, again. Seriously, what the fuck:

but the actual argument was that you shouldn't set up a level appropriate encounter full of flying ranged attackers when the party can't effectively deal with it (ie. all melee characters with no bows or flight).

Do you not see how this is in fact exactly what Roy just said?

Flight is a plot power, and you totally should never have the party fight winged opponents, because they're completely helpless against such foes!

That's the same fucking thing. You just objected when Roy said you said A, and "corrected" him that you had actually said... A. A == A. You're just wall of text arguing at this point.

-Username17

Ok, let's work through the logic chain here.

Roy claims I said A) Flight is a plot power (not going to argue this a huge amount, that's basically correct), and B) you should never have the party fight winged opponents because they're completely helpless against such foes.

B) is completely wrong.

The main problem is the "because". Replace that with an if statement and I'm completely cool with it. If you have a party full of archers, feel free to have as many flying enemies as you want. If you have a single archer and a couple melee guys, feel free to sprinkle some fliers in, although having a bunch of fliers is probably a bad idea because the rest of the party is going to get bored. I also have a minor issue with him using the term "winged opponent" since I only ever talked about flying opponents with ranged attacks (if the melee characters can get a good swing in when the giant eagle dives at him, that's a fine encounter).

This is what I'm talking about with straw men btw. I say X (don't have enemies the players can't fight) and you start arguing against Y (never have flying opponents).

[Halloween Jack]

There's also a problem where most of the "magic" we tend to see in DnD doesn't reflect traditional fantasy magic very well. It's too cheap, easy and convenient. Traditional fantasy tends to have either weak magic (ie. in a knight vs wizard fight the knight always wins, although he may come out cursed in some way) or have serious repercussions (deal with the devil). I can't think of many myths where the wizard can do exactly what he wants with magic at any point in time. Even in the Vance stories magic was fairly rare and while potent it tended to be very specific.

Rhialto and his fellow arch-wizards are the only fantasy wizards I can think of who approach in power the high-level 3.5 wizard, who is more like a Marvel/DC character with vaguely-defined "cosmic powers" than anything in popular fantasy fiction. And in that case Rhialto and his pals only reinforce your point: The whole point of the wizards of the Blue Compact is that they're all demigodlike in power, so they spend the vast majority of their time as a debaucherous bickering gentleman's club who are rarely ever in any real danger.

I'm curious, how does one design adventures for a group of high-level spellcasters in 3.5 without heaps of fiat? It wasn't a problem in my group, but that's because the spellcaster players wanted to sling fireballs and summon zombies and go on adventures; they weren't interested in turning the game into a thought experiment about how to render a setting completely implausible or kitting out their magnificent summer cottage on the moon.

I do not see how breaking the economy with crafting, bypassing any attempt at a plot with divination spells, or creating wacky effects with a Rube Goldberg device made of wondrous items adds up to inventive and innovative roleplaying. Seems more like bean-counting.

Edit: By the by, some of you fine fellows are fixating on this flying archer monkey harpy thing to a degree that borders on the erotic.

[Username17]

This is what I'm talking about with straw men btw. I say X (don't have enemies the players can't fight) and you start arguing against Y (never have flying opponents).

You fail at logic. You have no fucking idea what a straw man is, or you wouldn't call that a straw man argument. The flying opponents are an example of an enemy that the players can't fight (what with the standard party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Swords Ranger having zero characters who have the range to attack a flying archer). Therefore, they are an example of something that you said the players should never fight.

Since Y is in this case a subset of X, it's not a fucking straw man. It is in fact a use of Reductio Ad Absurdum. That's a valid argument. You claiming that it is not allowed is you using Special Pleading, which is a fucking fallacy.

So now you've brought the classical logic into this bitch, and you are still wrong. Worse, the classical logic shows you to be more wrong than the simple discussion techniques we were using earlier. Because now we can demonstrate formally and mathematically that you are so full of that if we beat the shit out of you there would be nothing left.

-Username17

[Halloween Jack]

It is definitely plausible and chock-full of verisimilitude for a party of melee combatants to go up against a pack of flying archer skirmisher baddies that they can't touch except to plink away with mundane bows or throwing weapons. It’s also plausible for the PCs to be stuck in a muddy hamlet for three weeks because their wagon broke and a town of this size [rolls on chart] does not have a dedicated wheelwright, but that’s boring and sucks and I wouldn’t run that game. Someone comes along who can fix their wagon but who has an ulterior motive, and the PCs will take cover somewhere that the skirmishers have to come in and get them, and if they won’t then the PCs find an alternate route through the caves under the rock outcropping but the caves are full of tunnel beasts.

[violence in the media]

I do not see how breaking the economy with crafting, bypassing any attempt at a plot with divination spells, or creating wacky effects with a Rube Goldberg device made of wondrous items adds up to inventive and innovative roleplaying. Seems more like bean-counting.

Serious question moment, what are many Divination spells really, if not fantasy analogues to CCTV systems, forensics labs, and research facilities?

What, exactly, do you want the PCs to do if not use abilities like that? Are they just supposed to walk around and skill-check suspects into submission in your murder-mystery? Do they just need to be led around in circles by the MC until the Plotline Express builds up steam? What's the ideal way you see this playing out?

[Novembermike]

I do not see how breaking the economy with crafting, bypassing any attempt at a plot with divination spells, or creating wacky effects with a Rube Goldberg device made of wondrous items adds up to inventive and innovative roleplaying. Seems more like bean-counting.

Serious question moment, what are many Divination spells really, if not fantasy analogues to CCTV systems, forensics labs, and research facilities?

What, exactly, do you want the PCs to do if not use abilities like that? Are they just supposed to walk around and skill-check suspects into submission in your murder-mystery? Do they just need to be led around in circles by the MC until the Plotline Express builds up steam? What's the ideal way you see this playing out?

I don't think anyone has a problem with limited divination. The Priest of the Undead God ripping the skull off the corpse of a murder victim and forcing it to recite its last living words is pretty flavorful and gives the players evidence to work things out. Having the players cast a divination that just tells them what happened, not so fun.

[Halloween Jack]

Serious question moment, what are many Divination spells really, if not fantasy analogues to CCTV systems, forensics labs, and research facilities?

Those resources require detecting and finding evidence using your own personal skills, time, expertise, and access. Plus, evidence can be erased or never created in the first place.

This is quite different from being able to pull out a few props (spell components) and instantly spy/pull background information/locate any person on earth.

What, exactly, do you want the PCs to do if not use abilities like that? Are they just supposed to walk around and skill-check suspects into submission in your murder-mystery? Do they just need to be led around in circles by the MC until the Plotline Express builds up steam? What's the ideal way you see this playing out?

There are a lot of roleplaying games in which abilities like Legend Lore, Scrying, Discern Location, and True Seeing simply don't exist. What do you think happens in them?

Do you seriously think that players are being "railroaded" if they can't cast a spell to instantly know everything? Do you really believe that every RPG that's not superheroic high fantasy is a murder mystery on rails?

[LR]

I'm curious, how does one design adventures for a group of high-level spellcasters in 3.5 without heaps of fiat? It wasn't a problem in my group, but that's because the spellcaster players wanted to sling fireballs and summon zombies and go on adventures; they weren't interested in turning the game into a thought experiment about how to render a setting completely implausible or kitting out their magnificent summer cottage on the moon.

If the PCs want to build a cottage on the moon, they have to fight the moon people and their moon rabbit army. You need no excuse to give the adventurers their four EL=PL encounters per day, because that's always the assumption. If the PCs do not look for adventurer, adventure will find them. The demon princes will unleash a blight on their larvae orchards, or the bandit lord will initiate a hostile takeover of their magic shop. Changing the backdrop doesn't take the Black Hats out of the game, it just causes them to use a different strategy.

I do not see how breaking the economy with crafting, bypassing any attempt at a plot with divination spells, or creating wacky effects with a Rube Goldberg device made of wondrous items adds up to inventive and innovative roleplaying. Seems more like bean-counting.

Because nobody here plays games like that seriously. In serious games, the Wizard builds Wizard Towers, the Fighter commands an army, and the Druid can control the fucking weather. The PCs can actually make the fantasy lives of the fantasy people better in a way that isn't reestablishing the status quo.

Divination isn't even a problem, barring tricks like the Teleport Ambush. It's just an alternative form of exposition. Instead of an NPC telling you about the Dark Lord's evil plan, you see the Dark Lord command his minions to carry it out. It's even better for the MC, because he doesn't have to watch the party fumble around in the dark until they hit the Dark Lord's Goblin Army plot hook.

It is definitely plausible and chock-full of verisimilitude for a party of melee combatants to go up against a pack of flying archer skirmisher baddies that they can't touch except to plink away with mundane bows or throwing weapons. It’s also plausible for the PCs to be stuck in a muddy hamlet for three weeks because their wagon broke and a town of this size [rolls on chart] does not have a dedicated wheelwright, but that’s boring and sucks and I wouldn’t run that game. Someone comes along who can fix their wagon but who has an ulterior motive, and the PCs will take cover somewhere that the skirmishers have to come in and get them, and if they won’t then the PCs find an alternate route through the caves under the rock outcropping but the caves are full of tunnel beasts.

We are not too dumb to figure out that if your party is full of dumb melee fighters, you don't send a bunch of flying archers at them. We are simply upset that the game cannot model Heracles vs. the Stymphalian Birds because all of Heracles' attack powers trigger off melee attacks.

[violence in the media]

I don't think anyone has a problem with limited divination. The Priest of the Undead God ripping the skull off the corpse of a murder victim and forcing it to recite its last living words is pretty flavorful and gives the players evidence to work things out. Having the players cast a divination that just tells them what happened, not so fun.

So, what spell is that, exactly? How is questioning a corpse with Speak with Dead fundamentally different from questioning a diety with Commune or Contact Other Plane? Is it Detect Thoughts that's causing problems?

Am I missing a spell that returns a result of:

"Yeah, so this guy was killed by a pack of lemures that were summoned by a dude that was hired by the mayor for a secret cult ritual. The mayor's actually the only guy in the cult, and the assassin doesn't know who hired him, so it's a good thing you cast this spell, because there's actually nobody you could talk to that could give you this information."

Serious question moment, what are many Divination spells really, if not fantasy analogues to CCTV systems, forensics labs, and research facilities?

Those resources require detecting and finding evidence using your own personal skills, time, expertise, and access. Plus, evidence can be erased or never created in the first place.

This is quite different from being able to pull out a few props (spell components) and instantly spy/pull background information/locate any person on earth.

Are spells and powers not part of your personal skills and expertise? If you're playing a Cops game, do you arbitrarily not give the PCs "access" to the crime lab because it would make things too easy? The time complaint doesn't even make sense to me. From the player standpoint, it doesn't matter if it takes 3 hours or 3 days to get the DNA results back, as that takes all of 5 seconds to fast-forward. If you're using that time delay to introduce more murders/crimes/whatever, you're essentially telling the PCs you don't really want them doing detective work--you really want them walking the beat so you can drop the BBEG in their lap.

There are a lot of roleplaying games in which abilities like Legend Lore, Scrying, Discern Location, and True Seeing simply don't exist. What do you think happens in them?

Do you seriously think that players are being "railroaded" if they can't cast a spell to instantly know everything? Do you really believe that every RPG that's not superheroic high fantasy is a murder mystery on rails?

I think the players are being railroaded if they can't do anything to move the plot along or intercept the badguy without the MC's explicit permission.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It is definitely plausible and chock-full of verisimilitude for a party of melee combatants to go up against a pack of flying archer skirmisher baddies that they can't touch except to plink away with mundane bows or throwing weapons. It’s also plausible for the PCs to be stuck in a muddy hamlet for three weeks because their wagon broke and a town of this size [rolls on chart] does not have a dedicated wheelwright, but that’s boring and sucks and I wouldn’t run that game.

Why not? That's what happens in any story once you reach a certain breakpoint. In Star Wars, after a certain power level you need to develop some kind of counter to Force Powers or you lose. In Marvel universe, you need to have some form of super-damage avoidance after a certain point (teleportation, regeneration, ultra-toughness, etc.) or you automatically lose. In A:TLA you need some kind of elemental shield after a certain point or you automatically lose. Hell, in D&D you need a goddamn magical sword after a certain point or you automatically lose.

These kinds of things are good and genre reinforcing, not game flaws. It's a fucking insult that a giant enemy crab, even one the size of a big-city courthouse, is supposed to be a challenge to Iron Man or Captain Atom without massive PIS or fuck-off plot armor.

There are a lot of roleplaying games in which abilities like Legend Lore, Scrying, Discern Location, and True Seeing simply don't exist. What do you think happens in them?

Well, considering that Shadowrun has very similar game effects and are available at a much lower power level than in D&D to boot (and this is a setting that explicitly bans teleportation), then either these games are strict dungeon crawls, at a power level lower than 1st Year Harry Potter, or intentionally futzing with the genre. Scrying and psychometry are staples of heroic fantasy--and they're not even plot-solvers. The stories of Aladdin and Snow White, munchkin settings that they are, can't even start without some kind of remote knowledge gatherer.

[LR]

Well, considering that Shadowrun has very similar game effects and are available at a much lower power level than in D&D to boot (and this is a setting that explicitly bans teleportation), then either these games are strict dungeon crawls, at a power level lower than 1st Year Harry Potter, or intentionally futzing with the genre. Scrying and psychometry are staples of heroic fantasy--and they're not even plot-solvers. The stories of Aladdin and Snow White, munchkin settings that they are, can't even start without some kind of remote knowledge gatherer.

Anyone who claims that Divination is bad for the game need to experience being the MC in a game where the investigation never takes off because the PCs refuse to notice a critical piece of evidence.

[tzor]

So, what spell is that, exactly? How is questioning a corpse with Speak with Dead fundamentally different from questioning a diety with Commune or Contact Other Plane? Is it Detect Thoughts that's causing problems?

Off the top of my head, the difference is as great as night and day. Speak with dead is somwhat a misnomer. It is really a one time animate a dead creature's head and talk to it a while. The result is always a dead person's POV. Therefore the results given may or may not be accurate, but they were believed to be accurate by the dead person at the time.

A number of years ago I did a little thought exercise on low and mid level D&D that explored whether or not you could be an agnostic in a D&D world. To my surprize the answer was a resounding YES, according to the rules as written. (IIRC you just can't talk to a diety with CoP, just one of his minions ... at least that is what the minon tells you.)

[Halloween Jack]

If the PCs want to build a cottage on the moon, they have to fight the moon people and their moon rabbit army. You need no excuse to give the adventurers their four EL=PL encounters per day, because that's always the assumption. If the PCs do not look for adventurer, adventure will find them. The demon princes will unleash a blight on their larvae orchards, or the bandit lord will initiate a hostile takeover of their magic shop. Changing the backdrop doesn't take the Black Hats out of the game, it just causes them to use a different strategy.

...

Divination isn't even a problem, barring tricks like the Teleport Ambush. It's just an alternative form of exposition. Instead of an NPC telling you about the Dark Lord's evil plan, you see the Dark Lord command his minions to carry it out. It's even better for the MC, because he doesn't have to watch the party fumble around in the dark until they hit the Dark Lord's Goblin Army plot hook.

Stuff like Teleport Ambush is kinda the problem. Scrying > Teleport > Finger of Death, bandit lord solved.

If these lamented lost spells are just alternative exposition, why even make players buy or select them? Why charge PCs for a plot coupon the DM was going to give them anyway? And if these spells are just alternative exposition, how can they affect who gets to share in the narration, one way or the other?

We are not too dumb to figure out that if your party is full of dumb melee fighters, you don't send a bunch of flying archers at them. We are simply upset that the game cannot model Heracles vs. the Stymphalian Birds because all of Heracles' attack powers trigger off melee attacks.

I think Hercules vs. The Stymphalian Birds was Hercules turkey-shooting a bunch of scared evil birds, which you can pretty much do with a basic attack. Much more interesting to have them regroup and rush Heracles so he has to defend himself in melee, or spit acid so he has to lure them into a cave or forest canopy, etc. etc.

Anyone who claims that Divination is bad for the game need to experience being the MC in a game where the investigation never takes off because the PCs refuse to notice a critical piece of evidence.

"The game proceeds A > B > C > D > E > F > G. If the PCs fail a skill check to notice E, the game goes in circles until they do." This is a very very bad way to write a plot outline for roleplaying, and an open-ended I Cast Plot Coupon option is not going to make it better.

Besides, why would any player ever do any interesting legwork once they reach the point where they can cast Plot Coupon 4/day?

[violence in the media]

So, what spell is that, exactly? How is questioning a corpse with Speak with Dead fundamentally different from questioning a diety with Commune or Contact Other Plane? Is it Detect Thoughts that's causing problems?

Off the top of my head, the difference is as great as night and day. Speak with dead is somwhat a misnomer. It is really a one time animate a dead creature's head and talk to it a while. The result is always a dead person's POV. Therefore the results given may or may not be accurate, but they were believed to be accurate by the dead person at the time.

A number of years ago I did a little thought exercise on low and mid level D&D that explored whether or not you could be an agnostic in a D&D world. To my surprize the answer was a resounding YES, according to the rules as written. (IIRC you just can't talk to a diety with CoP, just one of his minions ... at least that is what the minon tells you.)

I'm not talking the metaphysics of the setting, I'm talking about the actual mechanical effect. If anything, Speak with Dead is chattier than the other two spells, as it's not explicitly limited to one- to five-word answers.

If you're using those spells to solve your mystery, it's because you're making intelligent use of the questions allowed to you. You're playing +/- 20 questions to find the answer instead of interviewing everyone in town.

[tzor]

I'm not talking the metaphysics of the setting, I'm talking about the actual mechanical effect. If anything, Speak with Dead is chattier than the other two spells, as it's not explicitly limited to one- to five-word answers.

But the former is a real world POV, it's like looking at a closed circuit television ... oh wait, the robber wore a disguise because he was aware of the CCT. In the same way people take SwD and plan their attacks accordingly, or even in such a way as to deliberately mislead or throw red herrings in the path of those who use it.

Commune with someone on another plane assumes a "divine" sort of overview and someone who clearly saw exactly what happened.

"Oh, Lord, we beseech thee! Tell us who croaked the Bishop of Westminster."

"The one in the gray suit; he did it."

"It's a fair cop, but society's to blame."

[Novembermike]

This is what I'm talking about with straw men btw. I say X (don't have enemies the players can't fight) and you start arguing against Y (never have flying opponents).

You fail at logic. You have no fucking idea what a straw man is, or you wouldn't call that a straw man argument.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Seems pretty accurate.

The flying opponents are an example of an enemy that the players can't fight (what with the standard party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Swords Ranger having zero characters who have the range to attack a flying archer). Therefore, they are an example of something that you said the players should never fight.

Who said we had wizards in this party? We have a halberd fighter, greataxe barbarian, paladin with a sword and shield and a bard who specializes in two weapon fighting and has heal spells memorized (because we don't have a cleric). All 3E mind you. It's poorly optimized, but hey, it's what they wanted to play. Flying opponents with ranged weapons are nearly impossible for this party to interact with in a meaningful way, so pitting them against flying enemies with ranged attacks would be a pretty dickish thing to do.

Since Y is in this case a subset of X, it's not a fucking straw man. It is in fact a use of Reductio Ad Absurdum. That's a valid argument. You claiming that it is not allowed is you using Special Pleading, which is a fucking fallacy.

This is getting embarrassing. Reductio Ad Absurdum in the simple sense (take an extreme case) isn't an argument. You have to contradict the extreme case somehow. Moreover, Y is not a subset of X. I can prove this by taking an extreme case and disproving it through contradiction (aka Reductio Ad Absurdum).

Statement: Flying enemies are impossible to fight (assumed since Y is a subset of X).

Absurd case: An infinitely large group of archers and wizards and paladins riding dragons cannot fight an eagle.

See how that works? By constructing an obviously false extreme case that is obviously a subset of the hypothesis, we can prove the hypothesis wrong.

Btw, if you were trying to use that "standard party" above to perform the contradiction then you are definitely trying to straw man because my argument has always hinged on the party having a limited ability to interact with the threat.

[Halloween Jack]

So, what spell is that, exactly? How is questioning a corpse with Speak with Dead fundamentally different from questioning a diety with Commune or Contact Other Plane? Is it Detect Thoughts that's causing problems?

Holy carp, I can't believe you're asking! The differences are tremendous. Speak with Dead has interesting limitations--you're only retrieving information imprinted in the corpse's brain. You only know what the person knew, from their biased perspective. You need access to the body. The body must be whole enough to communicate. You have a time limit on communication, and when it runs out, you can't immediately cast the spell again.

This makes for a very very different experience from "I Cast Know A Thing. DM, tell me the thing I want to know."

Are spells and powers not part of your personal skills and expertise?

Yes, but they're things you carry around with you at all times and can mostly do at-will. You don't need any negotiation or approval to cast Discern Location.

If you're playing a Cops game, do you arbitrarily not give the PCs "access" to the crime lab because it would make things too easy?

You've never watched a cop show where the protagonists have difficulty getting access to records, equpiment, a search warrant, etc. and obtaining it becomes part of the plot?

The time complaint doesn't even make sense to me. From the player standpoint, it doesn't matter if it takes 3 hours or 3 days to get the DNA results back, as that takes all of 5 seconds to fast-forward.

And in those 5 seconds, your mortal enemy kills another victim, escapes town, and uses a sample of his blood in the ritual that makes him more powerful.

You never play/run in games where there are time constraints on the PCs actions? Ever?

I think the players are being railroaded if they can't do anything to move the plot along or intercept the badguy without the MC's explicit permission.

Uh-huh. And you think that's implicitly the case whenever there isn't a "Do This: Get This Result" magic power in the rules?

[Username17]

Who said we had wizards in this party? We have a halberd fighter, greataxe barbarian, paladin with a sword and shield and a bard who specializes in two weapon fighting and has heal spells memorized (because we don't have a cleric). All 3E mind you. It's poorly optimized, but hey, it's what they wanted to play. Flying opponents with ranged weapons are nearly impossible for this party to interact with in a meaningful way, so pitting them against flying enemies with ranged attacks would be a pretty dickish thing to do.

In 3e, every one of those characters you picked has a ranged weapon. The Paladin, the Fighter, the Barbarian and the Bard all have proficiency with the longbow. They may not be great with them, but their attacks are real and operate at long distances. And since there is cover on the ground and no cover in the sky, they can actually win such a shootoff.

It's only in 4e where the game actually tells you that players don't have long ranged weapons. In 3e, the game tells you that the players do. The Harpy Archers encounter isn't a big deal, it's just variety.

And again: you fail. The "Oh noes! Harpy Archers! The game is broken!" is a state of affairs that is totally unique to 4e. Players of previous editions look at that statement with open-mouthed disbelief because it is completely foreign to the experience.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Goddammit Jack, are you being deliberately obtuse about these divination spells? The point is, you can't get pissed off at Commune or Contact Other Plane if you're okay with fucking Speak with Dead.

Here is the whole fucking SRD text on Commune:

You contact your deity—or agents thereof —and ask questions that can be answered by a simple yes or no. (A cleric of no particular deity contacts a philosophically allied deity.) You are allowed one such question per caster level. The answers given are correct within the limits of the entity’s knowledge. “Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient. In cases where a one-word answer would be misleading or contrary to the deity’s interests, a short phrase (five words or less) may be given as an answer instead.

The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions. The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes. If you lag, discuss the answers, or go off to do anything else, the spell ends.

And the pertinent info from Contact Other Plane:

You send your mind to another plane of existence (an Elemental Plane or some plane farther removed) in order to receive advice and information from powers there. (See the accompanying table for possible consequences and results of the attempt.) The powers reply in a language you understand, but they resent such contact and give only brief answers to your questions. (All questions are answered with “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” “never,” “irrelevant,” or some other one-word answer.)

You must concentrate on maintaining the spell (a standard action) in order to ask questions at the rate of one per round. A question is answered by the power during the same round. For every two caster levels, you may ask one question.

Yes, Speak with Dead is easily defeated by some relatively mundane precautions, but neither of the two spells presented give you tons of exposition without some semi-intelligent questioning. It seems like the only reason you people are giving SwD a pass is because you know it can be easily neutered.

Now, I will totally grant that these spells could be even more explicit about what they will or will not reveal, as that short phrase caveat in Commune really fucks up the elegance of yes/no answers. CoP is fine, from the "preserve the mystery!" POV, as you're never totally sure that you're getting a completely legit answer.

Regarding the cop shows, the getting records difficulty usually lasts a few minutes of TV time, at most. Hell, NCIS has Gibbs intimidating fucking science to work on his timeline. As far as your murderer striking again in that fast forward time, I just addressed that. In the post you quoted even. Lastly, Discern Location is an 8th level spell--it is 100% acceptible for it to be a fuck-your-hiding spell.

[Novembermike]

Who said we had wizards in this party? We have a halberd fighter, greataxe barbarian, paladin with a sword and shield and a bard who specializes in two weapon fighting and has heal spells memorized (because we don't have a cleric). All 3E mind you. It's poorly optimized, but hey, it's what they wanted to play. Flying opponents with ranged weapons are nearly impossible for this party to interact with in a meaningful way, so pitting them against flying enemies with ranged attacks would be a pretty dickish thing to do.

In 3e, every one of those characters you picked has a ranged weapon. The Paladin, the Fighter, the Barbarian and the Bard all have proficiency with the longbow. They may not be great with them, but their attacks are real and operate at long distances. And since there is cover on the ground and no cover in the sky, they can actually win such a shootoff.

It's only in 4e where the game actually tells you that players don't have long ranged weapons. In 3e, the game tells you that the players do. The Harpy Archers encounter isn't a big deal, it's just variety.

And again: you fail. The "Oh noes! Harpy Archers! The game is broken!" is a state of affairs that is totally unique to 4e. Players of previous editions look at that statement with open-mouthed disbelief because it is completely foreign to the experience.

-Username17

You do realize that fighers in 4e can use bows by default, right?

[LR]

Stuff like Teleport Ambush is kinda the problem. Scrying > Teleport > Finger of Death, bandit lord solved.

If these lamented lost spells are just alternative exposition, why even make players buy or select them? Why charge PCs for a plot coupon the DM was going to give them anyway? And if these spells are just alternative exposition, how can they affect who gets to share in the narration, one way or the other?

Besides, why would any player ever do any interesting legwork once they reach the point where they can cast Plot Coupon 4/day?

Teleport Ambush is a problem with ambushes, not with teleport. If loading up on short term buffs wasn't an option, then teleport ambushing would not be a problem. I also never said that Divination is a real ability that improves player agency. It's an alternative magical investigation method. It has real limits and actually requires you to do footwork to get the payoff. The benefit of adding new methods of investigation is simply that players have more chances to find the exposition hook.

"The game proceeds A > B > C > D > E > F > G. If the PCs fail a skill check to notice E, the game goes in circles until they do." This is a very very bad way to write a plot outline for roleplaying, and an open-ended I Cast Plot Coupon option is not going to make it better.

It happens. Sometimes the MC thinks that a piece of evidence is so obvious that the PCs will find it immediately, and... they never do.

You do realize that fighers in 4e can use bows by default, right?

But they can't use their powers with them. Once the novelty of martial weapons wears off, a 3e fighter has the option of training archery or buying some Winged Boots.

[Halloween Jack]

Goddammit Jack, are you being deliberately obtuse about these divination spells? The point is, you can't get pissed off at Commune or Contact Other Plane if you're okay with fucking Speak with Dead.

I didn't mention either of those spells; I repeatedly mentioned Scrying and Discern Location. Commune and Contact Other Plane are also spells where the players receive info that gives them someone to work with rather than a gift-wrapped answer.

Yes, Speak with Dead is easily defeated by some relatively mundane precautions, but neither of the two spells presented give you tons of exposition without some semi-intelligent questioning. It seems like the only reason you people are giving SwD a pass is because you know it can be easily neutered.

It's not about "neutering" the spell. It's not about PCs and the GM being adversarial toward one another. It's about a spell that gives interesting clues that bolster the players' efforts to find out things with roleplaying and spells, as opposed to casting "Know Thing" and knowing that thing, no fuss no muss no interesting plot complications.

Regarding the cop shows, the getting records difficulty usually lasts a few minutes of TV time, at most. Hell, NCIS has Gibbs intimidating fucking science to work on his timeline.

That’s actually a significant fraction of a 22 or 45 minute show, and it matters. Plus, NCIS is about cops. PCs are frequently wandering adventurers and don’t start from a position of authority.

A great thing to watch is the pilot episode of “Fringe.” A lot of the episode is essentially about trying to scramble the resources to cast Speak With Dead and then act on that information in a way that produces results. Much more interest than Cast Know Stuff, know stuff, plot solved.

As far as your murderer striking again in that fast forward time, I just addressed that. In the post you quoted even.

Having things happen in the setting independent of the PCs actions is not necessarily a kick in the pants to tell them they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. Quite the opposite in many cases.

Lastly, Discern Location is an 8th level spell--it is 100% acceptible for it to be a fuck-your-hiding spell.

Okay, as long as you're okay with GM fiating any time you don't want a high-level party to instantly be able to find almost anything or anyone they know.