The MacGuffin and the Spell List

[Amphetryon]

I suspect most here have played or run a campaign arc where this comes up. I've seen it many times, both at the table and as a premise within threads here and on other D&D fora. It goes something like "the Duke's only child languishes in a feverish coma. The Duke's magicians and healers are unable to cure the child without the rare fruit of the Jubjub tree, which our brave adventurers now seek." While these plot elements generally work perfectly well in books and movies, they invariably strain verisimilitude within the game world. The problem is, in 3.X, essentially every fetch-quest like this can be entirely subverted by magic. Neutralize Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/neutralizePoison.htm), Remove Curse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeCurse.htm), and Remove Disease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeDisease.htm) are things that exist in the game world and should be readily available in Scroll and/or Potion form to anyone capable of paying adventurers' fees for the alternative. Locate Creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) and Locate Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm) are of similar availability and utility for any "Pat, holder of the Thing of Thingness, is missing; please help!" type missions; the built-in foils to these two Spells only feel slightly less heavy-handed on the DM's part as arc-driving mechanisms than any obstacles preventing the first three listed Spells from working as normal.

As DM, how do you avoid campaign arcs that aren't trivialized by a single Spell and don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed? As Players, how much leniency do you give to a plot element that one trip to the Magick Shoppe, the local Church, or nearest Druid's Grove could circumvent entirely?

[Elder_Basilisk]

These concerns are overblown and exaggerated.

Dealing with the thing. First: have you checked out the range and duration on locate object and locate creature? Or the ease with which they can be blocked (running water or a thin sheet of lead)? The spells are easy to foil even without magic and the magic that foils them (misdirection and non-detection at low levels) is also low level and much longer duration than the locate object/person spells. It is so trivially easy to foil such spells that they should only be factors in a very few situations. And even if there were no countermeasures in place, it would still be difficult to use them effectively to cover anything more than a small area. If you have narrowed the location down to a particular block, they could be useful (assuming they weren't countered which they would be). If all you know is "it's in the poor quarter" you'll only find what you're looking for with the spells through dumb luck.

Secondly, most of the time the adventure is not really in finding the thing/person at all--it's in getting to them. Even if the spells trivialized the investigative portion of the adventure ("the mcguffin is in the thieves' guild headquarters"), you have to make your way through the thieves' guild headquarters to get it. More often than not, that's the adventure anyway.

The concern that "the dukes' healers and magicians are unable to cure the child without the fruit of the rare jubjub tree" plot hook is invalidated by magic is likewise exaggerated and overblown. What part of "the dukes' healers and magicians are unable to cure the child" is difficult to understand? Is it the part where the dukes healers and magicians tried magic? Obviously, it wasn't a normal common poison or their magic wouldn't work. It is clearly a very rare and expensive magical poison/curse that is resistant to healing/curse removing magics. Really, if you were an assassin would you use anything else on a duke's child? Even in 3.5, there are lots of curses that have limitations on how they can be removed. (Mark of justice, for example, requires that the caster level of the remove curse be higher than the mark of justice caster level). Magical diseases and curses with spell resistance or similar resistance are easily conceivable too. Sure, there are ways to beat it without the juice of the jubjub tree, but they don't need to be readily available. A lot of locations won't have 11th level spellcasters running around (in Red Hand of Doom, for example, the highest level friendly divine spellcaster in the Elsir vale is level 8 and the highest level arcane spellcaster is level 9). A quest to go get the high priest of Pelor in Istvin (two counties over and 250 miles away) to help is just as good as a quest to get the juice of the jubjub tree.

[Gallowglass]

I actually am DMing a pathfinder game right how with a character in it who is a healer oracle type who has "all the heals." So, yeah, it makes using diseases and poisons and curses somewhat more interesting to use.

I have tried a few ways to handle this. The first is the healer's kit. This is like the spell component pouches of the wizard yeah? Its filled with vials and vials of ingredients used to concocting medicines and restoratives. The first time the healer ran into a disease I didn't want it to be non-trivial to get rid of, I had the remove disease fail and, when he investigated further, he discovered that some diseases, some curses, some poisons require an exotic component to complement the spell. So, in your case, the Ju-Ju plant would be the exotic component he needs, in addition to his remove disease spell, in order to cure the disease.

Is this fiat? I suppose it is. But what is the purpose? to make a component of the game that the PC was interested in non-trivial so that it becomes interesting again. When this PC made his character, he was excited about learning and exploring new diseases and poisons and such as a physician would. The system, as it is, does not allow that because neutralize poison is neutralize poison is neutralize poison. This simple change gave him a mechanic to use to play the game he wanted to play.

So now he has a journal were he comes up with his own names for new diseases, where he keeps track of how much of each exotic ingredient he has, and that he treasures more than his magic items. *shrug* He and the player with the alchemist are always conspiring together to make new things based on this new mechanic.

None of the players seemed to feel unfairly treated or rolled their eyes about the DM fiat or whatever. So its in how you present it. And, frankly, if they cast cure disease in the example you gave and you said "It does nothing. The King's healer explains that they already tried that. They need the ju-ju plant as an exotic component to complement the cure disease to get it to work" and your players roll their eyes and groan and bitch about how unfair it is of you to castrate the awesome power of their 3rd level spell, then you got yourself some players who aren't interested in the type of game you are DMing.

[BearonVonMu]

As a GM, there is flexibility. If you find yourself with players who try to (for lack of a better phrase) solve the quest themselves with the spells or items they have on hand, then there can be complications. I am confident that I am in the minority here in this, but I operate slightly outside of the rules on a frequent basis. You broke the curse with remove curseor break enchantment? A complication will arise, either due to it being a particularly nasty curse ("if broken without the jubjub tree fruit as a spell component, the curse spreads to a family member of the cursed" as an example). Perhaps the curser knows when the curse has been improperly broken.
Or, alternately, you need to tell a different kind of story for those players.
As a third option, you talk to your curse breaking player and tell them that this is the story you have prepared, that it is perfectly fine that they wrap up the story in ten minutes, and that they would get a small amount of experience for overcoming a single encounter and that you would be up for Cards Against Humanity for the rest of the evening.
As a player, I subscribe to the story that the GM is wanting to tell. I will openly tell the GM that if I am about to use my spell toolbox and break his narrative in a way that it can't cope with, that he tells me that, and I'll not do it. A recent example: we were put in a trap room with the door on the opposite side being locked with no mechanism visible. Clearly we were meant to mess with the ominous jar in the middle of the room, but I tried using knock on the locked door. He asked me not to, so instead we sprung the trap, fought the summoned creatures, and then continued on.

[Troacctid]

As a DM, I just use bestow greater curse. Good luck finding a 17th level caster to remove it.

[Malimar]

Agreeing with the others in this thread:

You're not limited to the afflictions listed in the books.

In my setting, there are diseases that require obscure material components without which remove disease won't work (though I suppose a higher spell level or caster level than is readily available could also work). Could be the diseases evolved resistance to magic on their own, could be some cultist deliberately engineered a difficult-to-cure disease for malevolent reasons, could be any number of things.

[Amphetryon]

As a DM, I just use bestow greater curse. Good luck finding a 17th level caster to remove it.

At what level are the PCs, when facing opponents who cast as 13th level Clerics or higher? Alternately, why are the folks casting from Scrolls (to access that Spell) choosing that particular option? Many of the Players I've known would argue that such tactics don't make narrative sense, regardless of whether they otherwise drive the story forward.


In my setting, there are diseases that require obscure material components without which remove disease won't work (though I suppose a higher spell level or caster level than is readily available could also work). Could be the diseases evolved resistance to magic on their own, could be some cultist deliberately engineered a difficult-to-cure disease for malevolent reasons, could be any number of things.

Is this not just DM Fiat, ignoring the rules in place in order to try to craft a story that the game's mechanics make intrinsically difficult?

[Âmesang]

Expensive, but the whole point of "epic poisons" is to have a toxin that's immune to all magical and supernatural curatives.

Alternatively it could be that whatever the party is supposed to be looking for doesn't actually exist; one example being Davked Splintershield from The Shackled City Adventure Path.
His "incurable wasting disease" doesn't actually exist… 'cause he's not even who he said he is.

Heck, I'm reminded of The Last Dragon where Bruce Leroy searches all over Chinatown for a "Wise One" …only to find that it was just a machine spitting out fortune cookie fortunes.

[Troacctid]

At what level are the PCs, when facing opponents who cast as 13th level Clerics or higher? Alternately, why are the folks casting from Scrolls (to access that Spell) choosing that particular option? Many of the Players I've known would argue that such tactics don't make narrative sense, regardless of whether they otherwise drive the story forward.

They're not facing the caster. They're only facing the one spell, which may have been cast a long time ago, or, if it was cast recently, was likely delivered from a long way away by the caster's invisible familiar.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Alternately, why are the folks casting from Scrolls (to access that Spell) choosing that particular option?
Because there are only, like, two people in the campaign setting who are powerful enough to undo said option?

[Amphetryon]

Because there are only, like, two people in the campaign setting who are powerful enough to undo said option?

Again, the complaint has been that such choices make little narrative sense. "There are only, like, two people in the campaign setting. . . to undo said option" is as much a guarantee of success as "the only way this base can be destroyed is via a single access tunnel," often decried as a glaring weakness in a certain well-known movie franchise.


Alternatively it could be that whatever the party is supposed to be looking for doesn't actually exist

The number of Players I've seen who would respond to such tactics with some form of table-flip (perhaps a metaphorical one, but still) is not negligible. Several people with whom I have gamed over the years would loudly protest this sort of dishonesty on the DM's part. If this is not your experience, I congratulate you on your good fortune.

[Troacctid]

Again, the complaint has been that such choices make little narrative sense. "There are only, like, two people in the campaign setting. . . to undo said option" is as much a guarantee of success as "the only way this base can be destroyed is via a single access tunnel," often decried as a glaring weakness in a certain well-known movie franchise.

Why doesn't it make narrative sense for 9th level spells to be exceedingly rare? Even in the largest cities, you can only be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 7th- and 8th-level spells. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices

[eggynack]

I think the point is that wholesale murder is a viable alternative. Assuming that's the claim, it's not too hard to justify non-murder. Maybe the enemy wants the kingdom distracted by curse removal. Maybe extortion is the goal. Heck, maybe they just got qualms about killing. Not too hard to come up with a reason for the curse.

[Darth Ultron]

As DM, how do you avoid campaign arcs that aren't trivialized by a single Spell and don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed? As Players, how much leniency do you give to a plot element that one trip to the Magick Shoppe, the local Church, or nearest Druid's Grove could circumvent entirely?

It's true that a lot of simple effect are easy to fix, but not all of them. Remove curse and remove disease for example does say that it does not always work. And the spells are limited to only one thing, so a remove curse has no effect on someone under the effects of a baleful polymorph.

And once you go beyond core there are dozens of effects.

Though I'd also say a game world should be full of tons of ''custom'' things. The idea that a game must only use a handful of things made up by a couple people years ago is silly.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fun details about greater bestow curse;

It doesn't actually require a high level character to cast. Demonolgoist 3. That's an 8th level character.

It fits in potion form. Demonologist 3.

It -does- take a high level caster to remove. It specifically ignores remove curse, break enchantment, and limited wish. You -must- break it with wish or miracle or you must fulfill the designated ending conditions.

It can be used to hold in place another baleful effect. This one's not specific to the description of greater bestow curse but it's such an obvious application that I can't see anyone making a reasonable objection to it. Maybe pump a little XP in ala permanency prescedent just to make it fair.

It's also noteworthy that there are RAW effects attached to some creatures and classes that specifically behave as curses or diseases that either resist or ignore remove disease/curse. Use them.

Locate creature/object have, as noted, fairly short ranges and durations as well as other limitations that are easy enough to foil even without magic.

Neutralize poison is only useful if you know you're going to need it or can cast it within the minute it takes for a poison to have its full effect. 5 rounds if the poison is delivered with a virulent weapon (DotU).

[Gandariel]

Many people suggested very good ways to go with it.

Also, "you are expected to find 15th level casters in every big city" isn't true.
It depends on campaign world. Many campaigns have restricted magic, many people have very few high level characters around.

If there are only 5 people in the world above level 10 (and they could be adventuring, evil, noncasters, in a cave somewhere, legends, not trusting you, busy somewhere else), yes it's hard to find a particular spell.

But leaving that aside.
In a world where an easy-to-access spell can remove all toxins and diseases, nobody would really use poison, aside from the ones that kill you very quickly.
Why would you go through the risk of poisoning someone if it's really easy to remove it?

It also makes sense that ALL assassin guilds and bad guys alike would try to make diseases that beat that spell. And to beat those diseases you'd need something else (like capturing/killing the caster, or an ingredient, etc)

The game gives you all the tools you need to solve these problems if you use some imagination.

[Amphetryon]

Many people suggested very good ways to go with it.

Also, "you are expected to find 15th level casters in every big city" isn't true.
It depends on campaign world. Many campaigns have restricted magic, many people have very few high level characters around.

If there are only 5 people in the world above level 10 (and they could be adventuring, evil, noncasters, in a cave somewhere, legends, not trusting you, busy somewhere else), yes it's hard to find a particular spell.

But leaving that aside.
In a world where an easy-to-access spell can remove all toxins and diseases, nobody would really use poison, aside from the ones that kill you very quickly.
Why would you go through the risk of poisoning someone if it's really easy to remove it?

It also makes sense that ALL assassin guilds and bad guys alike would try to make diseases that beat that spell. And to beat those diseases you'd need something else (like capturing/killing the caster, or an ingredient, etc)

The game gives you all the tools you need to solve these problems if you use some imagination.
Who made the claim that the bold portion was true?



Locate creature/object have, as noted, fairly short ranges and durations as well as other limitations that are easy enough to foil even without magic. Indeed, those limitations were even acknowledged in the opening post.

In a world where the game provides a list of effects and Spells to deal with those effects, is any instance where the Spell that is designed to counter that particular effect (or otherwise deal with that particular problem) not just DM Fiat?

[Kelb_Panthera]

In a world where the game provides a list of effects and Spells to deal with those effects, is any instance where the Spell that is designed to counter that particular effect (or otherwise deal with that particular problem) not just DM Fiat?

What? I can't parse this. Are you saying that using the extant options that are very difficult to counter is DM fiat?

[Elder_Basilisk]

In a world where the game provides a list of effects and Spells to deal with those effects, is any instance where the Spell that is designed to counter that particular effect (or otherwise deal with that particular problem) not just DM Fiat?

Do you mean like obscure object, nondetection, and misdirection are designed to foil locate object, and locate person?

I'm guessing you mean a poison designed to foil neutralize poison though. It's not DM fiat when you use an effect that is specifically designed to do so by monsters or NPCs who would logically have reason to acquire and to use such a thing. (Whether the effect is already extant in published materials or you have to homebrew it is irrelevant). In fact, I would say that it's built into the trope already. All the king's healers and magicians can't help the poisoned prince. It stands to reason that the healers and magicians were trying the standard healing and magic spells which we all know about and are in the PHB. They didn't work. That's why the quest is needed. What would be ridiculous would be if all the kings' healers and magicians had been "trying" to cure the prince and then the PCs step up, cast remove disease and he's all better. What, the kings healers and magicians didn't try that? They're not very good excuses for healers and magicians are they?

Now, presumably the NPCs who did this knew that the king would have access to healers and magicians who could foil ordinary poison/disease/curses, that's why they went with the exotic one. And presumably if they're going up against the king and are big enough to build an adventure (or campaign) around, they should have the resources to get the exotic things they need for the plot to work. That is not DM fiat.

DM fiat would be if the random farmboy who was stung by a giant centipede or other ordinary creature without extraordinary resources was somehow victim of this exotic poison and magic didn't work on him--only the mysterious quest item. Unless there was some good reason that the monster with exotic poison/etc was there or the NPC used the exotic poison/etc on the farmboy. (Perhaps it's a test run or a specially bred creature that escaped from the lab where the NPCs are building the monster to use on the prince. In that case, the PCs should be able to find clues as to what's going on and it's foreshadowing, not DM fiat).

[Gandariel]

Who made the claim that the bold portion was true?


Here, just a couple posts above mine


Why doesn't it make narrative sense for 9th level spells to be exceedingly rare? Even in the largest cities, you can only be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 7th- and 8th-level spells. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices

[Malimar]

Here, just a couple posts above mine

I believe Troacctid's point was 8th-level spells are a sort of maximum, and you took him as implying a minimum. So far as I can tell, the two of you are, in fact, in agreement.

[Gandariel]

My point was:
You can't say "You are expected to run into XXth level casters in a city" because that's a very campaign dependent question.

By the same reasoning, you may not need to craft some homebrew reason why this poison/diseases needs the McGuffin to cure. It may just be that getting a high level spell is just even more impractical

[Waazraath]

About "DM fiat": a lot of official content (premade adventures) make liberal use of (artificially created) situations where "just use the spell list" isn't enough. An example of this are teleportation effects: so many dungeons in Shackled city, but also in the "expedition" books, force parties to travel in the old fashioned way through the dungeon, using 'extra rules' with artifacts or planar effects. This isn't different imo then creating a creating a curse for which 'remove curse' isn't effective.

For me, it's pretty obvious that the designers of the game were at one point well aware that it was not desireable to have "wizard / cleric casts a spell" is the definitive answer to an adventure. They countered this with extra, new rules, using stuff like artifacts, to enable an adventure.

I don't know if doing this is "DM fiat". I do know it's doing your job as a DM, it it's needed to create an interesting adventure. (I think this is, by the way, one of the reasons that in fifth edition there are less codified rules - makes this much easier).

[Psyren]

This is a mindset issue. If "I'm choosing to use this effect because it's very difficult for players to counter" is considered "DM fiat" to you, then nothing anyone says is going to change your mind about that until you choose to see it differently.

As for the effects themselves - you should be viewing spell text, not as absolute inviolable laws of magic, but what the expected result of casting that spell will be under most/optimal circumstances. There are exceptions to every rule, and those exceptions are where campaign plots come from. Consider for instance OotS - the Snarl, Lirian's Virus, the Oracle, Soul Splices, and a number of other plot elements can't be found in the game rules anywhere, but all are needed to move the plot forward.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My point was:
You can't say "You are expected to run into XXth level casters in a city" because that's a very campaign dependent question.

Except you can. It's right there in the demographics table. Any metropolis should have 16 casters ranging from level 13 to 18. A DM is free to choose not to use this, just as they're free to choose to discard any other rule in the game, but it's still there. It's still RAW.


By the same reasoning, you may not need to craft some homebrew reason why this poison/diseases needs the McGuffin to cure. It may just be that getting a high level spell is just even more impractical

The most powerful of those, break enchantment, is -typically- only a 5th level spell but all of the spells mentioned in the OP, save locate creature, can be had as level 3 spells or lower. This was part of the problem. Fortunately, greater bestow curse is -also- available as a 3rd level spell and isn't susceptible to any of these counters. There are other effects resistant or immune to these counters but they're harder to find. Forcing through such effects usually -does- require high level magic; typically wish or miracle.

[Amphetryon]

As for the effects themselves - you should be viewing spell text, not as absolute inviolable laws of magic, but what the expected result of casting that spell will be under most/optimal circumstances. There are exceptions to every rule, and those exceptions are where campaign plots come from. Consider for instance OotS - the Snarl, Lirian's Virus, the Oracle, Soul Splices, and a number of other plot elements can't be found in the game rules anywhere, but all are needed to move the plot forward.

To the first point: when a DM pulls the technique of using exceptions to how the game's actual rules and mechanics work, that DM will generally be met with resistance and frustration from Players who expect the game world to work as they've been told it will. If that is not your experience, congratulations.

To the second point: OotS is 'about' D&D and roughly simulates it, but is pointedly *not* D&D; it is a web-comic, governed much less by the rules of the game it roughly simulates than by the needs of its sole author. For evidence, note The Giant's statement that none of the Characters have stat sheets. The game is not run based on suiting the needs of a sole author. . . at least, not according to how most folks around here describe a good D&D experience.

[Gallowglass]

Amphetryon, What do you want here?

you asked "As DM, how do you avoid campaign arcs that aren't trivialized by a single Spell and don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed?"

There have been, what, 7 or 8 of us who have given you good applicable advice about this. You just come across as not wanting to listen to what anyone else is telling you.

If you feel THAT strongly that a PC with remove disease as a spell should be able to remove all diseases without exception, and honestly believe that a PC who comes across a disease that can't be cured with a simple spell will see that as unfair DM authoritarianism, then just don't use diseases as reasons for quests in your game. Ditto poisons, ditto curses. Have fun with your kidnapping plots. Ethereal filchers make great kidnappers even if they can't spell worth **** on the ransom notes.


If that is not your experience, congratulations.

Thanks! We all enjoy playing in our games with our reasonable playing friends and colleagues.

[Waazraath]

To the first point: when a DM pulls the technique of using exceptions to how the game's actual rules and mechanics work, that DM will generally be met with resistance and frustration from Players who expect the game world to work as they've been told it will. If that is not your experience, congratulations.


To be honest, I never experienced this. But I guess it's also about how you execute this, as a DM. If the cleric get's remove disease, and from that point all monsters carry diseases that are immunie to cure disease, that's just antagonistic to the players, and unreasonable. But it's totally something else, as far as I concerned, if the party gets acces to remove disease, and they can use it freely on every disease in the DMG, it's a useful spell, with the sole exception on the big plot driving special uber-disease sent by the demon king to plague the entire nation.

In the first case, it's bad DM'ing. There is even stuff about this in the rules, about hoe you should as a DM let players enjoy their new toys, but those toys shouldn't be effective every time; don't make everything have 'see invisible' once the party has invisibility, but don't let it overcome every challenge; that kind of work.

In the second case, it's perfectly acceptable imo. There is plenty of RAW stuff (epic spells, artifacts, new researched spells) that allows this. The designers use these tricks themselves. To take offense on this, to get angry or frustrated, is imo a really weird case of entitlement: somehow, because players have 'remove disease' on their spell list, they have the right to never encounter a disease again on which it doesn't work? Hell no. What the players have a right to, is a cool adventure. And quite often, good adventures include encountering the mysterious, facing somthing the party doesn't know what it is, and making an effort to overcome this challenge.

If my players would get angry because of this, in all honestly they can go DM themselves. But as I said, I never encountered this, in any group.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Except you can. It's right there in the demographics table. Any metropolis should have 16 casters ranging from level 13 to 18. A DM is free to choose not to use this, just as they're free to choose to discard any other rule in the game, but it's still there. It's still RAW.

Metropolis is a pretty big city. In Greyhawk, there are only a few cities that reach that status. If you are in Perrenland, the Pale, Tenh, the hold of sea princes, the barbarian lands, the Urnst states, Highfolk, Geoff, Sterich, Almor, etc, or the bandit kingdoms (OK, Dorakka has high level casters but you probably don't want to visit) there could easily not be any metropolises in teleport range. When I played through age of Worms, there were several points where we had to plot out the number of teleports we would need in order to get to the nearest city the category below Greyhawk.

In pre 4e Forgotten Realms, there are also quite a few areas where the nearest Metropolis is a long ways away. The moonsea region has high level NPCs in Shadowdale (when they are there) but nothing close to a metropolis. If the Baldur's Gate games are anything to go by, the Sword Coast region doesn't have any metropolises either.

A lot of people assume that any campaign world is full of metropolises. That's not true of any of the WotC published worlds (except maybe Ebberon).

[Amphetryon]

Amphetryon, What do you want here?

you asked "As DM, how do you avoid campaign arcs that aren't trivialized by a single Spell and don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed?"

There have been, what, 7 or 8 of us who have given you good applicable advice about this. You just come across as not wanting to listen to what anyone else is telling you.

If you feel THAT strongly that a PC with remove disease as a spell should be able to remove all diseases without exception, and honestly believe that a PC who comes across a disease that can't be cured with a simple spell will see that as unfair DM authoritarianism, then just don't use diseases as reasons for quests in your game. Ditto poisons, ditto curses. Have fun with your kidnapping plots. Ethereal filchers make great kidnappers even if they can't spell worth **** on the ransom notes.


Answers that don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed? As you quoted me saying that, I thought I was clear on my interest in those results. Further, while I used the initial examples of disease/poison/curse, these are hardly the only plot MacGuffins which are trivialized by a reasonably accessible Spell/Powers list. For example, Trace Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/traceTeleport.htm) and/or Find the Path (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm) in conjunction with Scrying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) does a reasonable impression of trivializing kidnapping arcs.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

*Magic traps and spell effects have a CR of 1 + spell level.
It is perfectly appropriate to come up against Nondetection as a level 4 party, Forbiddance as a level 7 party, Bestow Greater Curse as a level 8 party, and Wish/Miracle as a level 10 party. This makes overcoming such defenses non-trivial for the party in question so they actually have to do the quest instead of pulling the solution out of their spell list.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Answers that don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed? As you quoted me saying that, I thought I was clear on my interest in those results. Further, while I used the initial examples of disease/poison/curse, these are hardly the only plot MacGuffins which are trivialized by a reasonably accessible Spell/Powers list. For example, Trace Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/traceTeleport.htm) and/or Find the Path (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm) in conjunction with Scrying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) does a reasonable impression of trivializing kidnapping arcs.

Complicated, not trivialized. If your PCs are high enough level to use these, their foes are high enough level to have countermeasures. Kidnapping still works at high levels; it just needs to be done smartly.

As a DM, stomping your feet and saying "MAGIC RUINED MY PLOT" is as foolish as a player whining "boohoo, my scrying spell didn't work" or "it's not fair that they did multiple teleports to foil my teleport trace" or "Mordenkeinen's private sanctum (and Magnificent Mansion) is totally cheating." If you have high level bad guys knowing that they are going to be opposed by high level heroes, of course they'll take the obvious countermeasures. A lot of them are in the Player's Handbook. It's what those spells are for. Heck, given the effectiveness of anti-scrying/teleportation/divination countermeasures, it's likely that the problem is making the kidnapping plot solvable, not it being trivial.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

For example, Trace Teleport and/or Find the Path in conjunction with Scrying does a reasonable impression of trivializing kidnapping arcs.
Umm, what? A bunch of mundane kidnappers get the duke's son. They tie and lock him up in a large wagon, which they ride to their destination. As they didn't use teleportation, it can't be traced. As the wagon is lead-lined, detection and location spells fail. As the wagon is moving at their direction and isn't a fixed location, Find-the-Path fails. As the interior of the wagon is totally dark, Scrying reveals no details whatsoever - even if it could bypass the lead-lining.


You better start investigating the normal way or the Duke won't get his son back.

[Psyren]

My point in bringing up OotS was to point out that, somewhere between "rulebooks" and "actual campaign" you need to have problems the PCs can't readily explain or instantly solve, otherwise there's no actual plot, savvy? Whether that campaign's story happens around a table with hand-painted miniatures, a high-tech online platform, in the theater of the mind, or is conveyed via stick figures on somebody's website is wholly irrelevant.


Amphetryon, What do you want here?

you asked "As DM, how do you avoid campaign arcs that aren't trivialized by a single Spell and don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed?"

There have been, what, 7 or 8 of us who have given you good applicable advice about this. You just come across as not wanting to listen to what anyone else is telling you.

If you feel THAT strongly that a PC with remove disease as a spell should be able to remove all diseases without exception, and honestly believe that a PC who comes across a disease that can't be cured with a simple spell will see that as unfair DM authoritarianism, then just don't use diseases as reasons for quests in your game. Ditto poisons, ditto curses. Have fun with your kidnapping plots. Ethereal filchers make great kidnappers even if they can't spell worth **** on the ransom notes.



Thanks! We all enjoy playing in our games with our reasonable playing friends and colleagues.

All of this.

[Troacctid]

Umm, what? A bunch of mundane kidnappers get the duke's son. They tie and lock him up in a large wagon, which they ride to their destination. As they didn't use teleportation, it can't be traced. As the wagon is lead-lined, detection and location spells fail. As the wagon is moving at their direction and isn't a fixed location, Find-the-Path fails. As the interior of the wagon is totally dark, Scrying reveals no details whatsoever - even if it could bypass the lead-lining.


You better start investigating the normal way or the Duke won't get his son back.

Who even has lead-lined wagons? That's just weird.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Anyone who wants his privacy in an era of wizards and Kryptonians.

[atemu1234]

Anyone who wants his privacy in an era of wizards and Kryptonians.

This is gold.

[Gallowglass]

Who even has lead-lined wagons? That's just weird.

Big Sal's discount lead-lined wagon emporium down on 7th and Vine.

You won't find them cheaper in the seven nation area. You may have to reupholster over the blood stains.

[dextercorvia]

Who even has lead-lined wagons? That's just weird.

My gaming group commissioned a lead lined wagon once. We were trying to sneak a dragonskull that was a lich's phylactery out of Ravenloft.

[Gallowglass]

My gaming group commissioned a lead lined wagon once. We were trying to sneak a dragonskull that was a lich's phylactery out of Ravenloft.

Big Sal has a deal for that. Free phylactery cozy with every deluxe wagon.

Feel that lead. That's not cheap Thayan lead. That's real, genuine swordcoast lead.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Thayan lead is cheap because they counterfeit it via conjuration, then cast magic aura or nondetection on it to hide the fact that it's a useless knockoff just long enough for you to buy it.


Come to think of it, most goods from nations full of evil spellcasters could be like that. Especially wizarding Britain in the Potterverse. Some Slytherins have even been buying gems and precious metals from muggles, enlarging or duplicating them, then selling them back.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Answers that don't come across as contrived or otherwise heavy-handed? As you quoted me saying that, I thought I was clear on my interest in those results. Further, while I used the initial examples of disease/poison/curse, these are hardly the only plot MacGuffins which are trivialized by a reasonably accessible Spell/Powers list. For example, Trace Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/traceTeleport.htm) and/or Find the Path (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm) in conjunction with Scrying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) does a reasonable impression of trivializing kidnapping arcs.

As belial_the_leveler pointed out so very adroitly, there are mundane foils to those examples. This is just caster-centric thinking rearing its head.

Every so-called problem spell has its limitations that seem to get forgotten.

The infamous scry is an obvious example; the target gets a will save. If it succeeds then the scrying simply fails. The target also gets a pretty hefty bonus if you know very little about him. This alone makes it -far- from fool proof. When you then consider intentional effort to foil such divinations; lead lined spaces, abjurations and illusions, disguise, etc; then it gets even less reliable. Finally if you expect to be scryed, it can be an excellent avenue for sowing misinformation or laying traps. You can only see the target and whatever is within 10 feet of him. He can put all kinds of misleading things around him; fake documents, innocent people he wants to implicate in his deeds, freakin' illusions, and whatever else you can think of to thwart a diviner. This is basic spycraft used in the modern world in response to CCTV cameras. Then of course you can be in a room with over two dozen guards and the scryer won't see a single one of them as long as the target isn't standing right next to any of them.

Trace teleport won't tell you anything about where the target went -after- arriving at his destination. It doesn't tell you anything about the point of arrival on the other end. If you blindly teleport after someone who you've traced, you can jump right to where he wants you because he expected it; a building full of death traps, a crowded town square, an area of empty space above a vocano because he had overland fight up and you might not, etc and so on. If you're really devious, you can carry a cricket in a little box, teleport that to the woods somewhere, then leave on foot. The diviner traces the cricket and goes completely off track while you simply stroll away.

Find the path can lead you right through monster lairs or to destinations you're seeking erroneously because of red-herrings. The duration is short enough you're going to need multiple castings if the destination is more than a couple hours away. "The current location of whoever owns this knife," is not a valid location. Neither is, "Where the stolen crown jewels lie." Being able to find a location is nice but you first have to determine what location you need to find and deal with whatever creatures you find there still.

Got any more?


Who even has lead-lined wagons? That's just weird.

SBG has rules for lining -buildings- with lead. A wagon's not a big deal. When scrying is a known thing, the desire to foil it will, natrually, lead to such innovations.

[HunterOfJello]

Lycanthropy requires a Remove Disease or Heal spell cast by a 12th level or higher cleric to work.

This gives precedence for magical diseases with extra level requierements (as well as special ingredients that also do the trick, i.e. belladonna). The kingdom and party may have the resources to deal with a magical disease but not enough levels to necessarily have the spell work.

[Jack_Simth]

Lycanthropy requires a Remove Disease or Heal spell cast by a 12th level or higher cleric to work.

Mummy Rot has similar clauses, yes, and there's other supernatural diseases if you look around (mostly in the Book of Vile Darkness, I think).

[Fizban]

As above, the "plot ruining" spells actually all have tons of limitations intentionally built into them. The problem is that most DMs don't know the full set of interactions and counters even if they have a good general idea, simply because there's no user manual. Remember that these rules were basically expanded upon over years by people who'd been using them since the beginning, and who also generally considered it a bit of a contest where if you didn't know some bit of the rules then you were fair game for getting screwed by them. There's no user manual, so most people don't know how to use it. Dunno if anyone's ever made such a guide, I've got some notes myself but they're not complete.

[Scrying] is easily blocked/neutered, locate X is just as easily blocked, Discern Location requires first-hand knowledge, Find the Path requires a known location. That's about it except Commune/Contact Other Plane, and those two specifically allow the DM to refuse answers if they want based on whoever's on the other end of the spell. It's not being heavy handed, it's having competent foes that use easily accessible knowledge.

As for healing, well if I'm playing a healer I'd probably be a little miffed if I heard someone was sick and then found out they were arbitrarily immune to Remove Disease. If I was specifically recruited in order to combat an "incurable" disease due to my status as a master healer, and solved the problem all or in part via spell research or application of some sort I'd be satisfied. I absolutely would not be satisfied with some fetch quest for the bogus fruit: if I'm fetching anything it had best simply be a convenient method of accessing a spell that's simply beyond my level. Unlike divinations which have all sorts of counters built in, healing magic is defined by "cast spell=fix problem" and any solution that ignores the spell invalidates my character. Curses are another story since they can do whatever but unless you're fulfilling a specific get-out-of-curse requirement, it's still just "find person with stronger magic" to break it.

[Elder_Basilisk]

As for healing, well if I'm playing a healer I'd probably be a little miffed if I heard someone was sick and then found out they were arbitrarily immune to Remove Disease. If I was specifically recruited in order to combat an "incurable" disease due to my status as a master healer, and solved the problem all or in part via spell research or application of some sort I'd be satisfied. I absolutely would not be satisfied with some fetch quest for the bogus fruit: if I'm fetching anything it had best simply be a convenient method of accessing a spell that's simply beyond my level. Unlike divinations which have all sorts of counters built in, healing magic is defined by "cast spell=fix problem" and any solution that ignores the spell invalidates my character. Curses are another story since they can do whatever but unless you're fulfilling a specific get-out-of-curse requirement, it's still just "find person with stronger magic" to break it.

Would you feel differently about it if the fetch quest were for a power component which, for example, would boost your caster level by 10 for the purpose of curing disease or for a lost, non-core spell that would be effective against the disease/poison? And do you feel the same way about lycanthropy and mummy rot?

[Fizban]

Power component to boost my caster level to beat a cl check disease? Perfect. Non-core spells are assumed to be fully allowed and not at all lost unless otherwise stated before game, my characters tend to have quite a few of them and this would have come up before now. Long-lost spell is where I'd be annoyed, since unless the spell is outside my casting ability I should be able to research it via the normal methods if I think it'll be easier. If it's a spell the DM would let have let me learn before he decided it was a quest goal then it's clearly railroading and I'm out. And the excuse of "oh it only cures this one disease that you didn't know about" is not an excuse, since the disease flag was triggered by the DM. It's about who initiates it: if I go looking for weird diseases and their cures, then the DM can respond by telling me the most efficient course of action would be digging up an old spell that only cures that disease (though that'd still be lame since no printed spells actually work that way-better do do a whole category). But if the DM drops it in front of my otherwise heal-specialized character, that means I should be allowed to respond with my own abilities first.

Back to non-core, there are few non-core spells that heal anything interesting, just like there are few divinations: the core stuff does most of it already. There's Panacea that hits most status effects below Heal, Hydrate for dehydration, Heart's Ease for early Insanity cures, some more specifics for pain effects and nausea and a couple that relieve/prevent starvation, but that's about it. The limit to what you can heal just simply isn't and shouldn't be spell knowledge: it's power, or supplementary knowledge (how/when/with what extras to apply the spells). Clerics get all the spells so even if you invent a spell that overcomes your new specific obstacle, there's no good reason they can't pray for it anyway. The trope of "find the lost cure spell" only works if you use a healer class with a restricted spell list (like the legitimately terrible Healer in the Mini's Handbook), otherwise it's gotta be "find the hidden cure technique for this specific curse."

Lycanthropy, well I've never seen anyone actually use it as written and I wouldn't be thrilled but it's not much of a problem. Easier to remove after it's set in actually since there's no cl check listed for breaking it under the full moon, the bigger problem is restraining the patient dealing with whoever infected them. Mummy rot is no problem, it sets the standard for "make cl check to heal" and not difficult to beat at all if you're built to boost caster level, which a healer would do specifically for that reason. See also vile damage (requires conserated area), frostburn damage (higher cl check than mummy rot), and a number of monsters with cursed wound abilities and other spells.

I think the question you're more going for is if you made up a new Lycanthropy-like disease, which has it's own special rules. Lycanthropy doesn't actually say how the players are supposed to figure that info out which means most people just take it with a Knowledge check, though which knowledge to use isn't given. You'd want to establish (either before character creation or allowing rebuilds later as always) what knowledge skills are needed to know about any given disease or "disease" that's actually specific curse. If the idea of a "healer" character is supported then you probably shouldn't require them to have literally all the knowledges just to do that one thing. If it's supposed to be something brand-new then you still need checks for figuring out something they do know which is close so it doesn't feel like a stonewall and they have an idea what to do next, standard for not-invalidating skill choices. If presented with a disease-like curse resisting my healer-build's spells and common spell sequences (Break Curse followed by X), I would then proceed to divinations (Divination or Commune) to figure out what the deal is: cast spell under circumstances, add special component, use other spell sequence, etc.