D&D 5E Is it right for WoTC to moralize us in an adventure module?

[Steampunkette]

Show me where it says that the PCs somehow intuitively know that the key can absolutely be done via illusion. Or where tattoo artists or you can make an arcane tattoo with your normal skills. Those sorts of things are precise.

You don't have to run the tattoo drawing that way, but at the very least as written the PCs aren't going to know just by looking at the tattoo that an illusion will work.

If illusions don't work, what good are illusions? shrug

Unless the tattoo itself is magic, which is not in the text, an illusion should work as good as anything else. And since you can copy the tattoo, and use the copy, it ain't the tattoo that's magic.

 

[Maxperson]

If illusions don't work, what good are illusions? shrug

Illusions have no physicality. They can look like things, but they fail if you touch them. Why do you think an illusion would work on something keyed to physical touch only?

 

[Flamestrike]

Gary Gygax argued that genocide was perfectly acceptable behaviour for a lawful good character, if it was genocide against an evil race. So are you being unfaithful to your alignment?

So did Hitler (and every other perpetrator of genocide ever), and I dont take him as my personal moral arbiter either thanks.

Genocide is evil. If we cant agree on that, we have nothing further to talk about.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm talking about when the 'evil' choice isn't as black and white. When the options are kind of gray.

Such as?

I've provided my definition of evil above in this thread (ditto good).

Give me an example.

 

[Steampunkette]

Illusions have no physicality. They can look like things, but they fail if you touch them. Why do you think an illusion would work on something keyed to physical touch only?

You know what else has no physicality?

An image.

Like a tattoo or a picture drawn on a page. Both of which work.

You know what else would work? A temporary tattoo. Or using a permanent marker to draw it on your skin. Or Disguise Self according to the text. And shock of shocks, a faked tattoo with the Disguise Self spell would not "Fail if you touch it" because it's a tattoo and it feels like skin... just like a tattoo does.

RAW, RAI, Illusions work because it's an image. Not a physical key.

But even if it WAS a Key, a physical real tangible key... an Illusionist could open the door with the Creation Spell. The key they make would just cease to exist after a certain amount of time based on the material it was made of. Because some illusions can do Tactile stuff. Like Mirage Arcana, which can create a rockface where a tunnel once existed that you can reach out and touch. There's also Simulacrum, which makes a whole freaking person.

Or if you wanna look at 3rd level, there's always Phantom Steed which makes a freaking HORSE you can RIDE.

Illusions work.

 

[Emoshin]

This is a whole lot of "I'm gonna add reasoning to the book that isn't there in order to naysay anything but cutting off her hand... or using my own ideas which aren't covered by the book!"

I am not @Maxperson and I don't mean to pick on you @Steampunkette but "This is a whole lot..." statement, at least to me, reads like an unfounded interpretation or assertion of the intention or state of the mind of basically some person on the Internet that you hardly know.

And I think there are sensitivities around an inference like "in order to naysay anything but cutting off her hand". At worst, this could be upsetting and presumptuous. At best, it's still reactionary and unhelpful, I think.

I have been on the receiving end of this kind of thing myself, and at least for me, it doesn't feel good. Maybe a lot of you folks are used to this, I don't know.

If I could somehow have put a + on this thread saying please no unfounded assertions/inferences/judgements about someone else's intentions, I would have.

Also, given a lot of people do advocate making the adventure your own, I am not sure I understand the reasoning for "using my own ideas which aren't covered by the book" to even be included in the above statement.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh I am sure I could salvage it, time permitting. I'd want to facilitate a heroically "good"/morally correct outcome. Also would need to reduce the DC 19 Insight check to deduce the tattoo is the key or (better yet) not make that single check a contingency to winning (in lieu of aiding and abetting or maiming or murder).

DC 19 seems reasonable under the circumstances. It's shouldn't be easy to do something that would require a skilled interrogator. And if that's the players' only plan, frankly, they deserve to fail.

And I think that's one problem with the mindset approaching written adventures: the assumption that the players will win. Really, with something like this, the players should only win through skilled play. For any of these heists "you fail" should be as likely an outcome as "you win".

 

[Maxperson]

You know what else has no physicality?

An image.

Like a tattoo or a picture drawn on a page. Both of which work.

Are you even reading what I'm typing here? What if..................you need to PHYSICALLY press the tattoo to the vault to open it? No illusion that the party can cast will be able to do that.

Also, you're wrong about the tattoo. The inks have physicality. The skin has physicality and for all the party knows it takes both.

You know what else would work? A temporary tattoo.

That is not necessarily true. It might require permanent inks. Or special arcane inks that the party doesn't have. Or...

RAW, RAI, Illusions work because it's an image. Not a physical key.

Is there some part of "Only the DM knows that" that you are not understanding from what I am saying here? I've said that three times now and you keep bringing it back up as if it changes something. There is no way for the party to know that by looking at the tattoo.

an Illusionist could open the door with the Creation Spell.

He doesn't have that spell, because he's too low level. There's a reason why I said "that the party can cast." You seem to have missed this at the top of the first page. "An Adventure for 4th-Level Characters" But hell, even if the group was 9th level and could cast creation, you cannot create a tattoo with it.

Or if you wanna look at 3rd level, there's always Phantom Steed which makes a freaking HORSE you can RIDE.

That's not a tattoo. Not that 4th level PCs can cast that spell, either.

Illusions work.

Wait?! You're actually arguing that because there are two illusions that specify that they have physicality, that the rest of the illusions which specify that they do not have physicality have physicality?

Here is what a 4th level PC can cast.

Minor Illusion(cantrip): "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Disguise Self(1st lvl): "The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection." - so that isn't physical at all.
Illusory Script(1st lvl): - Doesn't specify physical or not, so according to Crawford it is not. Also doesn't make tattoos. It's writing.
Invisibility(2nd lvl): - Not capable of making tattoos. Has no physicality in any case.
Mirror Image(2nd lvl): - Same as above.
Phantasmal Force(2nd lvl): - Same as above.

No illusion spell castable by a 4th level group(even if you have a caster that can cast them in the first place, can take the place of a tattoo that needs to be there physically.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Are you even reading what I'm typing here? What if..................you need to PHYSICALLY press the tattoo to the vault to open it? No illusion that the party can cast will be able to do that.

Also, you're wrong about the tattoo. The inks have physicality. The skin has physicality and for all the party knows it takes both.

That is not necessarily true. It might require permanent inks. Or special arcane inks that the party doesn't have. Or...

Is there some part of "Only the DM knows that" that you are not understanding from what I am saying here? I've said that three times now and you keep bringing it back up as if it changes something. There is no way for the party to know that by looking at the tattoo.

He doesn't have that spell, because he's too low level. There's a reason why I said "that the party can cast." You seem to have missed this at the top of the first page. "An Adventure for 4th-Level Characters" But hell, even if the group was 9th level and could cast creation, you cannot create a tattoo with it.

That's not a tattoo. Not that 4th level PCs can cast that spell, either.

Wait?! You're actually arguing that because there are two illusions that specify that they have physicality, that the rest of the illusions which specify that they do not have physicality have physicality?

Here is what a 4th level PC can cast.

Minor Illusion(cantrip): "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Disguise Self(1st lvl): "The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection." - so that isn't physical at all.
Illusory Script(1st lvl): - Doesn't specify physical or not, so according to Crawford it is not. Also doesn't make tattoos. It's writing.
Invisibility(2nd lvl): - Not capable of making tattoos. Has no physicality in any case.
Mirror Image(2nd lvl): - Same as above.
Phantasmal Force(2nd lvl): - Same as above.

No illusion spell castable by a 4th level group(even if you have a caster that can cast them in the first place, can take the place of a tattoo that needs to be there physically.

So no matter what creative idea the players come up with to mimic the tattoo, you'll say "No, that doesn't work"? That seems to be the implication here.

 

[Emoshin]

So no matter what creative idea the players come up with to mimic the tattoo, you'll say "No, that doesn't work"?

Is that a fair inference to make? Or would it not be better to engage directly with what the poster actually wrote?

That seems to be the implication here.

How do you know that for sure? If you don't know for sure, why don't you just ask from a place of curiosity and fact-finding?