D&D 5E Detect magic and Gargolye

[iserith]

No. The whole point of an ambush predator is you often don't realize it's there. That should hold true for pcs, too.

There is no challenge to be had in comparing Stealth and passive Perception and telling the players how much damage they take. That is randomness, not challenge because the players have almost no control over the outcome except how well they pumped passive Perception.

And the players may not be aware of it at the end of the day, despite the telegraphing. They may still get jumped by those gargoyles or piercers. That the DM telegraphed the threat, however, means that the chances of it being perceived as a "gotcha" is greatly reduced. (It depends on how artfully the DM telegraphed, really.)

It's a mistake to think that players always pick up on the clues, make the right decisions, and remove the challenge. At worst, they reduce the difficulty... but that's okay! It's a reward for smart play.

 

[the Jester]

There is no challenge to be had in comparing Stealth and passive Perception and telling the players how much damage they take. That is randomness, not challenge because the players have almost no control over the outcome except how well they pumped passive Perception.

There's nothing to compare. No Perception check can tell the difference between a gargoyle and a statue, per the False Appearance trait.

And that's exactly the opposite of 'randomness'. If there's nothing in doubt, if the outcome is always the same ("looks like a statue"), that's absolute consistency.

And the players may not be aware of it at the end of the day, despite the telegraphing. They may still get jumped by those gargoyles or piercers. That the DM telegraphed the threat, however, means that the chances of it being perceived as a "gotcha" is greatly reduced. (It depends on how artfully the DM telegraphed, really.)

Oh noes, the dreaded "Gotcha!" Yeah, that happens sometimes; I'll go so far as to say it should happen sometimes. Lurkers above, mimics, piercers, ropers, trappers, even the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing- D&D is, and always has been, full of monsters whose shtick is "Don't notice me until you're too close!" I don't have any problem with it, so long as there is some clue to the situation. The presence of statues is absolutely a clue. And you know what makes it so that pcs don't assume every statue is a monster? If you have statues in your game that aren't monsters. If 90% of the time a statue is just a statue, then there's no "procedural" thing involved. Change it up.

There is nothing wrong with a gotcha. I mean, to be precise, there's nothing inherently and innately wrong with it; it may well be bad for some playstyles. That's fine! But assuming that holds true for everyone is not.

It's a mistake to think that players always pick up on the clues, make the right decisions, and remove the challenge. At worst, they reduce the difficulty... but that's okay! It's a reward for smart play.

"There's a statue." Some players, either via luck or savvy, will figure out that they're gargoyles right away. You seem to be agreeing with me in principle but asserting that a clue isn't a clue unless it's blatant (or at least, blatant enough).

 

[iserith]

There's nothing to compare. No Perception check can tell the difference between a gargoyle and a statue, per the False Appearance trait.

And that's exactly the opposite of 'randomness'. If there's nothing in doubt, if the outcome is always the same ("looks like a statue"), that's absolute consistency.

It might not have been clear, but I was referring to the piercers.

Oh noes, the dreaded "Gotcha!" Yeah, that happens sometimes; I'll go so far as to say it should happen sometimes. Lurkers above, mimics, piercers, ropers, trappers, even the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing- D&D is, and always has been, full of monsters whose shtick is "Don't notice me until you're too close!" I don't have any problem with it, so long as there is some clue to the situation. The presence of statues is absolutely a clue. And you know what makes it so that pcs don't assume every statue is a monster? If you have statues in your game that aren't monsters. If 90% of the time a statue is just a statue, then there's no "procedural" thing involved. Change it up.

There is nothing wrong with a gotcha. I mean, to be precise, there's nothing inherently and innately wrong with it; it may well be bad for some playstyles. That's fine! But assuming that holds true for everyone is not.

I have never assumed that it is wrong for everyone. I've been very clearly speaking for myself and what I believe to be the objection behind the objection offered by the OP's player. If you like to "gotcha" your players and they enjoy being "gotcha'ed," it goes without saying that you should keep "gotcha'ing" them till the gargoyles come home.

As for D&D being "full of monsters whose shtick" is to "gotcha" the players, tradition is not a defense for continuing to do things that are known to raise objections from some players. I can telegraph all of these monsters well and remove the perception of the players having been "gotcha'ed," even if sometimes said monsters still manage to get the jump on the characters.

"There's a statue." Some players, either via luck or savvy, will figure out that they're gargoyles right away. You seem to be agreeing with me in principle but asserting that a clue isn't a clue unless it's blatant (or at least, blatant enough).

There is an art to telegraphing well, yes. "There's a statue" just isn't sufficient in my view. This invites procedural play, where the players are going to engage Standard Operating Procedure 2a, "Check to see if statue falls in the 10% of statues that will attack us." That's not my cup of tea.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no challenge to be had in comparing Stealth and passive Perception and telling the players how much damage they take. That is randomness, not challenge because the players have almost no control over the outcome except how well they pumped passive Perception.

How much to pump your passive Perception, at the expense of whatever other abilities, is very much a real choice that players make. If you neglect to have enemies roll Stealth against their Perception - perhaps because you always give the players clues that don't rely on their character stats - then you are devaluing an important aspect of the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is no challenge to be had in comparing Stealth and passive Perception and telling the players how much damage they take. That is randomness, not challenge because the players have almost no control over the outcome except how well they pumped passive Perception.

And the players may not be aware of it at the end of the day, despite the telegraphing. They may still get jumped by those gargoyles or piercers. That the DM telegraphed the threat, however, means that the chances of it being perceived as a "gotcha" is greatly reduced. (It depends on how artfully the DM telegraphed, really.)

It's a mistake to think that players always pick up on the clues, make the right decisions, and remove the challenge. At worst, they reduce the difficulty... but that's okay! It's a reward for smart play.

My players do not always pick up on my clues either.

But, there is no way I am going to telegraph an ambush predator.

Other predators? Sloppy ones that leave carcasses on the ground? Sure. The carcasses on the ground are the additional clue that there might be some type of monster in the vicinity.


But I disagree with your assessment that it is pure randomness when clues are not telegraphed. My players fan out when they enter a room. My players keep a lookout. My players have the best trap finders head towards interesting objects. This is not randomness, even though there might be an ambush predator in the room. This is purposeful decision making on the part of the players based on the information that they have received so far. They see a statue? That's an interesting object because most rooms do not have statues. They might go check it out, but they won't just all surround it and potentially get surprised with an area effect. They'll make (usually) intelligent decisions based on known information at the time.


In fact, I don't even give stealth vs. perception in the case of a gargoyle. The PCs can see the statue and I will describe things like wings, claws, fangs, etc. There is not necessarily an immediate perception to notice that something is not quite right. There might be a perception to notice that the statue has amazing detail (as per false appearance), but to determine that, they typically have to look a bit more closely at the statue and/or examine it in detail, and not just see it from across the room. No freebies. If they want more information, they have to interact with the gaming world, and not just roll dice or have the DM telegraph info.


The PCs in my group also get to use group stealth checks. So although the monsters sometimes ambush them, they sometimes ambush the monsters as well. Monsters in my world don't get info telegraphed from the DM either. Some times, the PCs get in a fight and the monsters (especially those with weapons, armor, and shields) are not ready for them. Oh well. Monsters can be sleeping, eating, playing, whatever based on monster, and not just waiting for the PCs to open the door so that they can fight right away.

 

[Beleriphon]

No. The whole point of an ambush predator is you often don't realize it's there. That should hold true for pcs, too.

Even ambush predators leave evidence of their passing. If you're going to include ambush predators, then you should at least let the players know that one is present, if not exactly where. I mean if I'm wandering through the jungles of the Amazon basin with a dozen cattle in tow I'd be a fool not to know a jaguar is probably following me, and I shouldn't be suprised when on tries to get what looks like a free lunch. It might catch me off guard that exact moment, but looking back I shouldn't be surprised that poor Bessy was attacked.

 

[KarinsDad]

Even ambush predators leave evidence of their passing. If you're going to include ambush predators, then you should at least let the players know that one is present, if not exactly where.

Here you claim that the DM should give the PCs a clue.

I mean if I'm wandering through the jungles of the Amazon basin with a dozen cattle in tow I'd be a fool not to know a jaguar is probably following me, and I shouldn't be suprised when on tries to get what looks like a free lunch. It might catch me off guard that exact moment, but looking back I shouldn't be surprised that poor Bessy was attacked.

And here, you claim that you (or a PC) should just know that a dangerous area might have predators without additional information.


Which is it? Should the DM give additional clues, or should players be smart enough to know that in dangerous areas, there might be monsters there?

Are the obvious DM clues needed or not?


Don't get me wrong. I think that information should be supplied as appropriate. Troll larder. Lot's of carcasses, smells awful before one even opens the door (and smells worse when the door is open), and when the carcasses are first examined, there are signs of gnawing and cracked bones to get to the marrow. The signs of gnawing are not apparent from the doorway. The PCs have to interact, but there is no roll for something this obvious once the PCs do interact with the carcasses (but this additional info is not just handed out for free until the PCs interact).

Even after interacting with the carcasses, there doesn't necessarily have to be a DM description that something tall did this or something strong did this. This type of additional information should come out of PC interaction with the environment and/or questions by the players and/or Investigation rolls. It's this non-obvious information that should not just be handed out for free. The players should have to investigate and interact further in order to get this more detailed level of information (for example, noticing that the gnawing has large scrape marks, indicating large teeth and possibly a large creature).

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I find that it can be really fun to have your character thrown into danger every once in a while. I don't think every challenge should be telegraphed to players through hints or investigation opportunities. Sure, if it happens too often it can be annoying, but it can be interesting to find yourself in a situation where some trouble arises that that isn't at all telegraphed and you must struggle to get out of it.

When I dm I do stick to some guidelines though. I find it best to target the whole group with these kinds of situations rather than single out a single PC. For example having a thunderstorm appear on the third day of travel when the previous two days were clear forcing the group to choose between finding safety or continuing on and risking a lightning strike, exhaustion from hard terrain and travelling while waterlogged, etc.
The surprise challenge also shouldn't have consequences that are irreversible. Instant death is a big nono, but a surprise round in combat or an initial round of damage from a trap can cause tension.
As I mentioned above its also best to use these kinds of techniques sparingly.

I like these "oh shi-" moments. They remind the players that they are not the masters of their own fate. They certainly have influence over it, but sometimes the universe intervenes. I fully acknowledge that this style is not for all groups. Many groups like to be the masters of their own fate and that's fine. This is just my opinion.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Me personally? I would be like "huh? So where's its source of negative energy coming from? Maybe it's powered some other way." I would ask questions of my DM -via the actions of my character in the game world, if I really cared so much- until I had some kind of suitable, or at least interesting, answer.

But then, I would never use Detect Magic to try to detect undead. I would expect my cleric or paladin to let me know if that was something to worry about...and if I were alone and there was an unmoving skeleton in the corner...I would watch it for a minute...see if it moved or not...and then, my character would assume it is not undead. Then my character would be frightened and/or surprised when it moved to attack me...and "should I have detected magic? Would it detect as magic?" would never cross my mind because I am just trying to stay alive at that point.

I and my players wouldn't even bother detecting magic. We would just smash the skeleton on general principles of paranoia. If it wasn't undead, no harm done.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Beleriphon]

I find that it can be really fun to have your character thrown into danger every once in a while. I don't think every challenge should be telegraphed to players through hints or investigation opportunities. Sure, if it happens too often it can be annoying, but it can be interesting to find yourself in a situation where some trouble arises that that isn't at all telegraphed and you must struggle to get out of it.

If you read the Angry DM blog post, he uses a green slime on a ceiling, over and entire corridor that is the only way forward. He doesn't drop it on the first guy down the hallway, but rather uses it as a way to basically force the players to stop and think about to do. Its an obstacle, not a screw job.

When I dm I do stick to some guidelines though. I find it best to target the whole group with these kinds of situations rather than single out a single PC. For example having a thunderstorm appear on the third day of travel when the previous two days were clear forcing the group to choose between finding safety or continuing on and risking a lightning strike, exhaustion from hard terrain and travelling while waterlogged, etc.

I actually this kind of situation is fine. Its not a gotcha you're screwed moment, since the players can still make decisions to mitigate, change or do nothing about their circumstances.