Consult Oracle makes a whole bunch of adventures impossible. You cannot run a mystery once that is available. In fact you cannot even have a hidden spy once that is available! Just ask if there is currently a spy in your organization, and follow it up by asking the name you know him by.
Forbiddance makes it impossible to teleport into an area, making other adventures impossible.
Phantom Steed can let you fly at a speed of 20, and you get to take full combat actions! Oh sure it ends if it takes damage, but you do not crash if it does end, and you can cast it 71 times for the same cost of an Overland Flight ritual. And yes, you do need to make that DC 40 Arcana check, but you get 71 chances to do so for the same cost!
And for the casual rules weasel, note that Cure Disease and Remove Affliction do not actually require the subject to survive for the ritual to be successful. So cast them, destroy the disease or affliction 30 levels higher than you that was supposed to be the focus of the grand adventure quest to find a cure for in time, and raise the corpse right after. Sure it costs a bit more, and they need to reach 3 milestones to get rid of the penalty, but they are cured! Even more adventures that are impossible!
I will break my previous statement (not to post more in this thread)...
Do we want an MMO here? Its 100% balanced (in theory), its completely without imagination, and it removes possibilties to retain balance.
A game like D&D isn't only about balance, it is also about giving the group the tools to simulate a fantasy world in a way that is reasonably balanced, simple to understand and logical (well, "fantasy-logical").
If you remove flying from the game you may have earned 1% balance, at the cost of 50% world-option.
So far, 4.0 already dragged the scale a long haul from options toward balance, and I am glad to see they didn't take it all out, and simply removed everything that may cause even the slightest problem. Taken to extremes, it would make sense to dissallow flying in general, and swimming, and well, mounts seems like a cheap set of extra power. We cannot think like this!
We are talking about something that experienced GMs will easily (I mean EASILY) adapt to. Note adapt, not fix, cause it ain't broken. New GMs will likely never encounter this kind of "horrible abuse", and if they have, they will also adapt to it quickly. The answers are so obvious that once it have happened, you know what to do. Hell, you have likely played quite a few levels before this even happens...it's level 20. Before this people already have flying mounts.
No, I meant not worth it for the damage to the game it causes.
He ignores all statements that are not easily dismissed.
He quoted my posts repeatedly and still maintains that Overland Flight is useful in combat (despite also repeatedly warning it can lead to TPKs) even though a) users can take no combat actions b) users are floating targets to any area, close, or ranged attacks.
No, I don't ignore all statements which are not easily dismissed. Typically, if I don't respond to it, it is because it is either:
1) So stupid it doesn't require refutation. 2) So stupid it makes me angry to even write a response to it. 3) Is unimportant or unrelated. 4) Has already been addressed.
Users take no combat actions is simply false; they can still move, and the ability to fly is very powerful, even if you can't do anything else. Flying 20 is much further than even a double move in combat is, and as it allows you to fly it has other consequences as well.
Users aren't targets to any area, close, or ranged attack because you're out of their range within two rounds with that high of a fly speed.
And the reason it can cause a TPK is because if you're high in the air and get in a battle, the monsters can savage you pretty effortlessly.
The reason it is useful in combat is because it allows you to completely negate combat encounters and move far, far faster than you would be able to ordinarily, in addition to allowing you to move up to impossible to reach places.
Do we want an MMO here? Its 100% balanced (in theory), its completely without imagination, and it removes possibilties to retain balance.
I'm going to explain something very simple to you.
Balance is fun.
And arguing that an MMO is "without imagination" is silly; they aren't.
Balance doesn't make a game less fun. It makes a game more fun.
Imbalance doesn't make a game more fun, it makes it less fun.
And flying all the time doesn't add options. Anyone who thinks it does is simply wrong.
It destroys a lot of options, many more than it creates. Flying occaisionally is interesting, but flying all the time is actually very bad because of the options it destroys.
I cant believe this "What I think is fun and balanced everyone thinks is fun and balanced and if you disagree with me you are stupid." thread is still going on 5 pages now.
There is a difference I take it between our perception of what an RPG is supposed to do. My assumption is that you like the motto of 4th edition; Care about the adventure, and make it fun; period.
For me, it is more of a sandbox. I want my game to allow for anything, and put me in change of it making sense. I create a world (Eiir), and I want a system that takes into account all the abnormalities I can imagine, be it flying, bathing in Lava, wishes, henchmen and summons. I do care for balance though, and in my experience even 3.5 does a great job in maintaining balance as long as I, as a GM is concious and capable of saying no.
This is the foundation for my view. Is my assuption of yours correct? I am not saying that is wrong, I just expect the same treatment for mine (and that of the general mob it seems).
Sure, you can make some un-fun stuff with this spell, but well, you can do that with a lot of stuff. Give a level 2 character a horse and he can ride away from the dungeon you place in front of him. In my experience, players and GMs cooporate to make an adventure fun. If we were to have rules enforce everything in a 100% balanced way we would end up with the mini-game from Baldur's Gate 2, where you can only "walk north, walk south, attack, look around". Do we really want 100% balance? yes. Do we want it at all cost? I sure don't.
I'm going to explain something very simple to you.
Balance is fun.
And arguing that an MMO is "without imagination" is silly; they aren't.
Balance doesn't make a game less fun. It makes a game more fun.
Imbalance doesn't make a game more fun, it makes it less fun.
Wow, condescending much. You're making is really hard not to make this personal.
Now let me explain something even simpler to you.
Fun is subjective.
I think Balance is stagnant. I think Balance is boring.
Balance is even fights where you have 50/50 odds and failure is determined by tactics or, much more often, random dice chance. Especially with the variability of a d20 which could probably be compressed to a coin flip. Heads = 1-10 and failure. Tails = 11-20 and success.
That's why there's a range of easy fights and hard fights because it's crazy fun when you're rooting for the underdog, or when you come from behind for the win.
That's why a fly spell. If you're smart enough to buy 5,000 gp of components in advance and carry them around with you on the off chance you'll be fighting in a giant cavern that's more that 15 squares high (75 feet or so) and predict the encounter far enough in advance that you can cast the ritual without wasting it on pure travel/exploration then you deserve an easy combat. Just like if you expect trolls and the wizard prepares all their fire spells while everyone's carrying enough alchemist's fire to lay siege to a small keep. Preparation and/or luck make for an easy fight which is deserved.
Cause it may not be balanced but it is crazy FUN to rain death on your enemies while just outside of range and laughing maniacally. It may not be fun for the DM who's watching is two-hours of planning go *poof* but his job is to make sure the other 3-6 people at the table enjoy themselves.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
Balance and fun are not inherently synonymous. If the letter of a rule promotes balance generally, but in certain situations uneccessarilly counteracts fun, the DM should feel free to change it in that instance. Likewise, if a rule promotes fun overall, but has the potential to unbalance certain situations, it's not a very rare rule, and rules like it never have been. If you personally don't like it, limit it or don't use it at all, but it is a worthwhile addition to the game if the majority of players feel that it increases their options and overall fun. People know what they enjoy, especially experienced players.
And as to your response to comment about the many ways in which a DM can rebalance, i hope you are being at least somewhat facetious, as it is obvious that I was commenting on general game balance and/or imbalance, which is often a matter of players finding something they can break, which players will ALWAYS do. There will never be a time when players stop trying to find ways to be more awesome, or do things that are outside the normal scope of the rules, and they shouldn't ever stop. That is a fun aspect of this type of gaming. It's not cheating, it's not unfair, it's just pencil and paper RPGs. Deal with it or go home.
this ritual isn't inherently broken or unbalanced, it just has the potential to be used by players in inventive ways which may make life harder for the DM. As a DM, i welcome that challenge. There is nothing that this ritual can do that i can't control, and even use to the advantage of the story, adventure, and the players. But then, i refuse to use premades, which may be part of why this seems like such a non-issue to me. No DM that knows how to improvise is going to have any problem with this, and even a DM who doens't like improvising really shouldn't be daunted by the players being able to fly.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
very very few people take the time to read an entire thread before they post. That's why about 95% of all forum posts are completely redundant, and only 0.1% contain anything really new.
This post is, of course, no exception to that rule :D
I'm glad someone actually clarified the ruling that the inaction part of the spell is an inherent trait of the overland flight ability while using it. A shame someone couldn't point it out to me earlier.
Titanium Dragon in reference to the destruction of mounts and airships]Because they're MacGuffins, plus they're easily returned. Killing the party, not so much.
Airships are not MacGuffins, they are established pieces of equipment that cost money & time to replace (far more than the Overland Flight ritual components). Destroying them is far worse railroading than preventing the ritual from being used once in awhile. Cloud Chariots are class abilities that are even more expected, and hence no different than Overland Flight in terms of encounter skipping.
You're even against the idea of players running away?! The concept is so rarely considered amongst soo many players, that it brings a ray of sunshine when the idea is put on the table, which is quickly destroyed because monsters almost always have superior speed (even equal speed makes it a wash). I tire of parties that consider retreat a death sentence.
Oh, and there are fun video games that involve flight, airplane games. Many are generally third-person viewpoint because of an otherwise constricted sight ability, but they're still shooting games with a full 3D viewpoint and are actually fun wrote:
Because they're MacGuffins, plus they're easily returned. Killing the party, not so much.[/quote] Airships are not MacGuffins, they are established pieces of equipment that cost money & time to replace (far more than the Overland Flight ritual components). Destroying them is far worse railroading than preventing the ritual from being used once in awhile. Cloud Chariots are class abilities that are even more expected, and hence no different than Overland Flight in terms of encounter skipping.
You're even against the idea of players running away?! The concept is so rarely considered amongst soo many players, that it brings a ray of sunshine when the idea is put on the table, which is quickly destroyed because monsters almost always have superior speed (even equal speed makes it a wash). I tire of parties that consider retreat a death sentence.
Oh, and there are fun video games that involve flight, airplane games. Many are generally third-person viewpoint because of an otherwise constricted sight ability, but they're still shooting games with a full 3D viewpoint and are actually fun; it just requires more than slapping a Z-axis button to Quake. The same applies to D&D, but the designers have already admitted to not putting in enough stuff to make boss fights fun, let alone aerial battles (not that you can even do such with Overland Flight).
Titanium Dragon]2) The ritual is a trap for PCs, as if they do something like fly a mile into the air and get attacked while doing so, it is a TPK and there's really nothing they can do about it.
Weren't you harping on about the whole 'running away' aspect of the spell, which makes that entire point moot?
Let's face it, you simply cannot handle the idea of player capabilities ever improving in ways other than having an attack bonus of over 9000 (only when ACs become over 9010), and want to force characters through the same story/game throughout their wrote:
2) The ritual is a trap for PCs, as if they do something like fly a mile into the air and get attacked while doing so, it is a TPK and there's really nothing they can do about it.[/quote] Weren't you harping on about the whole 'running away' aspect of the spell, which makes that entire point moot?
Let's face it, you simply cannot handle the idea of player capabilities ever improving in ways other than having an attack bonus of over 9000 (only when ACs become over 9010), and want to force characters through the same story/game throughout their career.
There is a difference I take it between our perception of what an RPG is supposed to do. My assumption is that you like the motto of 4th edition; Care about the adventure, and make it fun; period.
That is the correct motto. Dungeons & Dragons is a game; if it isn't fun, then it sucks.
Sure, you can make some un-fun stuff with this spell, but well, you can do that with a lot of stuff. Give a level 2 character a horse and he can ride away from the dungeon you place in front of him. In my experience, players and GMs cooporate to make an adventure fun. If we were to have rules enforce everything in a 100% balanced way we would end up with the mini-game from Baldur's Gate 2, where you can only "walk north, walk south, attack, look around". Do we really want 100% balance? yes. Do we want it at all cost? I sure don't.
The problem is that this spell doesn't violate the social pact.
Characters can ALWAYS refuse to go on adventures. That isn't the problem. Its largely unavoidable, and generally, players simply won't do it because they're being a jerk by doing so.
The problem is that if you give someone the fly spell, they'll use it. All the time. As well they should; its what their characters would logically do.
Players should NEVER EVER be forced to gimp their own character in order for the game to remain fun. Period. That's very unfun, breaks suspension of disbelief, and generally aggravates everyone.
In short, I want to play a fun game. You do too. You simply don't understand whose job it is to make the game system itself fun.
You think it is the DM's job. You are wrong. It is the game designer's job.
I think Balance is stagnant. I think Balance is boring.
You are a liar. You don't think either of those things. Well, not unless you're a jerk and like ruining people's fun.
Balance and fun are not inherently synonymous. If the letter of a rule promotes balance generally, but in certain situations uneccessarilly counteracts fun, the DM should feel free to change it in that instance. Likewise, if a rule promotes fun overall, but has the potential to unbalance certain situations, it's not a very rare rule, and rules like it never have been. If you personally don't like it, limit it or don't use it at all, but it is a worthwhile addition to the game if the majority of players feel that it increases their options and overall fun. People know what they enjoy, especially experienced players.
See, this is the bug in people's thought processes.
It isn't the DM's job to do this.
It is the game designer's job to do this.
The game rules should work out of the box. It isn't the DM's job to make them work. If I wanted to make my own rules set, I wouldn't waste my money on garbage put out by incompetants that I have to heavily modify to use; I'd make up my own functional system.
If it has the potential to unbalance certain situations, it shouldn't be possible to use in those situations by the rules. If it has the potential to make the game unfun, it shouldn't work in that way. If there's no way to make it fair, then it shouldn't exist at all.
this ritual isn't inherently broken or unbalanced, it just has the potential to be used by players in inventive ways which may make life harder for the DM. As a DM, i welcome that challenge. There is nothing that this ritual can do that i can't control, and even use to the advantage of the story, adventure, and the players.
Let me summarize what you just said.
1) This power isn't broken or unbalanced. 2) This power is broken and/or unbalanced.
Sorry, but your first sentence and your second sentence are mutually contradictory.
D&D isn't a game of the players vs the DM. Any rule which makes it so is a bad rule. Period.
Weren't you harping on about the whole 'running away' aspect of the spell, which makes that entire point moot?
Okay, seriously, how can you even make this argument with a straight face?
Please think about this.
What do you run away from? Foes who cannot fly.
What TPKs the party a mile up? Foes who can fly.
If you don't understand the difference between these two situations, and why it can cause both, you've got a problem.
