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

[Maxperson]

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.

That isn't true. We know that 10 minutes in front of the tattoo studying it or practicing it and a successful arcana check will work. And we know that if prisoner 13 tells them an illusion will work, they will know. And I've brought up the Keen Mind feat as a different way to know and I wouldn't even require the arcana check since it's perfect recall. And there might be other ways I haven't thought of. Heck, they're 4th level, so a Detect Thoughts might work.

However, the party does not KNOW illusion will work, and the party does now KNOW if drawing it will work. That lack of knowledge means that the smart party will stay to negotiate or get KNOWLEDGE a different way, because leaving and having to come back weeks later if their assumption fails will almost surely mean they have no further access to prisoner 13.

If that's the implication, it's a completely false one.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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


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?

I did ask and I also said "seems to be". So... ok?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That isn't true. We know that 10 minutes in front of the tattoo studying it or practicing it and a successful arcana check will work. And we know that if prisoner 13 tells them an illusion will work, they will know. And I've brought up the Keen Mind feat as a different way to know and I wouldn't even require the arcana check since it's perfect recall. And there might be other ways I haven't thought of. Heck, they're 4th level, so a Detect Thoughts might work.

However, the party does not KNOW illusion will work, and the party does now KNOW if drawing it will work. That lack of knowledge means that the smart party will stay to negotiate or get KNOWLEDGE a different way, because leaving and having to come back weeks later if their assumption fails will almost surely mean they have no further access to prisoner 13.

If that's the implication, it's a completely false one.

Re: Illusion or drawing
That's what ability checks are for?

 

[Maxperson]

Re: Illusion or drawing
That's what ability checks are for?

What ability check will tell you the absolute answers to those from a glance?

 

[Stormonu]

What ability check will tell you the absolute answers to those from a glance?

If it's important enough to succeed or fail the quest, I would hope the DM has the sense to provide that information with a successful ability check.

 

[Maxperson]

If it's important enough to succeed or fail the quest, I would hope the DM has the sense to provide that information with a successful ability check.

Again. WHAT ability check? Can you glance at the tattoo and know that illusion would work? Can you glance at the tattoo and know that the hand it's attached to doesn't have to be there?

 

[dragoner]

Don't buy the module francis

 

[Swarmkeeper]

What ability check will tell you the absolute answers to those from a glance?

I see the disconnect.

I'm not talking about an Ability Check to KNOW for certain an illusory or drawn tattoo would work. I'm talking about an Ability Check to try an Illusory or drawn tattoo to see if it would actually work. The dice make the decision if they work or not or if they work but with a consequence (success with a setback). Or would you, as DM, simply use Auto-Fail if the players wished to try that route?

 

[Maxperson]

I see the disconnect.

I'm not talking about an Ability Check to KNOW for certain an illusory or drawn tattoo would work. I'm talking about an Ability Check to try an Illusory or drawn tattoo to see if it would actually work.

Okay. And I'm not saying that it couldn't work. I'm saying that if they leave the prison and go check, and their guess was wrong, they'd be unable to come back weeks later as the same workers that just up and vanished without a word OR as guests to the prison. It would be too suspicious. They'd have ruined their chances at getting the correct info.

The smart party will stay and get the accurate information somehow BEFORE they leave, not go off of a guess and an ability check.

 

[Steampunkette]

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.

Bunches of stuff that all comes down to "Use an Arcana check (at most) to know it would work"

The players may INFER that there's a whole bunch of stuff that's needed. But the DM Knows that the Illusion works. And if the illusion would work in this situation, it should probably work in similar situations irrespective of additional inferences players may make but characters would know better...

Because they're trained in Arcana. If the DM is unwilling to communicate this kind of thing to the players, that's on the DM. Not the writer.

Also the Creation and stuff was me showing how you're wrong that illusion is "Never" tactile. Not "These are the spells they could use!" In fact I gave an explicit "Even if it required a physical key"

And no. A tattoo has no physicality in the sense of TANGIBILITY. If I use disguise self to have tiefling-red skin, no amount of touching it will reveal that my skin is actually white. Because the COLOR has no physicality.

It's just light.

 

[Emoshin]

At the risk of embroiling myself in this particular debate, I would have some questions...

We know that:

• The prisoner has these magical tattoos, to telepathically coordinate agents throughout Faerûn and beyond (presumably when she is outside her cell)
• Each cell is permanently blanketed in antimagic (9th level)
• There is other magic around the prison, like arcane lock (2nd level)

Now I like to do a bit of due diligence when it comes to worldbuilding:

Question #1: If this "magitech" prison has the ability to do things like 9th level antimagic, do they also have the ability to do 1st level detect magic? I'd say yes.

Question #2: Whoever designed this "magitech" prison, are they relatively resourceful and intelligent? I'd say yes.

Question #3: Is it plausible that, when at any point upon or during incarceration, that prisoners be subject to a detect magic scan? Given #1 and #2, I'd say yes.

Question #4: Would it be paramount for the prison to nullify her tattoos, preventing her continuing crimes? I'd say 100% yes.

Question #5: Have many different concerns been raised by various posters on this thread -- such as how the PCs are expected to assess the tattoo is a key and so much more -- and probably elsewhere online and offline? I'd say definitely!

Question #6: Given #5, could there be a different more cohesive story that could have been written that would not have put us in this awkward situation we find ourselves here right now? I'd say: beyond a doubt.

Question #7: What does all of this mean ultimately? Well, we have a number of proposed solutions. I know what I would do, but it does seem like people cannot agree on the best outcome that appeals to everyone. This is probably a question that will never be solved.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Question #7: What does all of this mean ultimately? Well, we have a number of proposed solutions. I know what I would do, but it does seem like people cannot agree on the best outcome that appeals to everyone. This is probably a question that will never be solved.

But we don't need to agree on "the best outcome" here. IMO, we, as DMs, need to play the scenario at a real table and let the players come up with a reasonable solution and, as appropriate, let the dice fall where they may. Or am I misunderstanding your point about "the best outcome that appeals to everyone."?

 

[Emoshin]

But we don't need to agree on "the best outcome" here. IMO, we, as DMs, need to play the scenario at a real table and let the players come up with a reasonable solution and, as appropriate, let the dice fall where they may. Or am I misunderstanding your point about "the best outcome that appeals to everyone."?

Good question! I think we have:

• DMs who read this adventure and say I won't run it
• DMs who read this adventure and say I want to run it as is
• DMs who read this adventure and say maybe I want to run it but I don't like it as is and I will change it
• DMs who read this adventure and say I don't know, I don't like it and go on Enworld and try to figure stuff out [insert your respective intention]

Also

• Players who play this adventure and will like the net result
• Players who play this adventure and will not like the net result

So you have all these different possibilities. The idea of "we, as DMs, need to play the scenario at a real table and let the players come up with a reasonable solution" is part of but not does cover ALL of those scenarios.

I didn't say we need to agree on the best outcome. I think there's only a potential "best outcome" for those who agree on certain parameters. Otherwise, it's a lost cause.

 

[Steampunkette]

At the risk of embroiling myself in this particular debate, I would have some questions...

We know that:

• The prisoner has these magical tattoos, to telepathically coordinate agents throughout Faerûn and beyond (presumably when she is outside her cell)
• Each cell is permanently blanketed in antimagic (9th level)
• There is other magic around the prison, like arcane lock (2nd level)

Now I like to do a bit of due diligence when it comes to worldbuilding:

Question #1: If this "magitech" prison has the ability to do things like 9th level antimagic, do they also have the ability to do 1st level detect magic? I'd say yes.

Question #2: Whoever designed this "magitech" prison, are they relatively resourceful and intelligent? I'd say yes.

Question #3: Is it plausible that, when at any point upon or during incarceration, that prisoners be subject to a detect magic scan? Given #1 and #2, I'd say yes.

Question #4: Would it be paramount for the prison to nullify her tattoos, preventing her continuing crimes? I'd say 100% yes.

Question #5: Have many different concerns been raised by various posters on this thread -- such as how the PCs are expected to assess the tattoo is a key and so much more -- and probably elsewhere online and offline? I'd say definitely!

Question #6: Given #5, could there be a different more cohesive story that could have been written that would not have put us in this awkward situation we find ourselves here right now? I'd say: beyond a doubt.

Question #7: What does all of this mean ultimately? Well, we have a number of proposed solutions. I know what I would do, but it does seem like people cannot agree on the best outcome that appeals to everyone. This is probably a question that will never be solved.

Addendum to question 3 and 4:

Are Psionics Magic?

The Psionic Tattoos work in an Antimagic Prison. So... no?

Which ultimately negates both of these questions. Detect Magic and Dispel Magic don't work on Psionics.

 

[Emoshin]

Addendum to question 3 and 4:

Are Psionics Magic?

The Psionic Tattoos work in an Antimagic Prison. So... no?

Which ultimately negates both of these questions. Detect Magic and Dispel Magic don't work on Psionics.

I had this question regarding mind flayers and anti-magic. It looks like originally mind flayer mind blast was magically emitted. Then Volo's Guide removed the "magically" part or made it optional IIRC. But then in Monsters of the Multiverse it went back to "magically". I'm going by memory, don't recall exactly.

Point is: I thought about it, I interpretated that 5E submits that psionics is a form of magic (like primal or divine or whatnot) and that made sense to me, and I went with it. So in my game, it does NOT negate either question.

Plus I believe IIRC that the adventure explicitly calls it magical tattoos, not psionic tattoos.

 

[Oofta]

Good question! I think we have:

• DMs who read this adventure and say I won't run it
• DMs who read this adventure and say I want to run it as is
• DMs who read this adventure and say maybe I want to run it but I don't like it as is and I will change it
• DMs who read this adventure and say I don't know, I don't like it and go on Enworld and try to figure stuff out [insert your respective intention]

You forgot: DMs who accept that the mod doesn't tell you how to run it. It just sets up the environment, let's you know who's who and what their motivations are along with some insight into who they are. It's an outline for an adventure in a sense, much like Dragon Heist which is mostly a source book for Waterdeep with an intro module.

Also

• Players who play this adventure and will like the net result
• Players who play this adventure and will not like the net result

So you have all these different possibilities. The idea of "we, as DMs, need to play the scenario at a real table and let the players come up with a reasonable solution" is part of but not does cover ALL of those scenarios.

I didn't say we need to agree on the best outcome. I think there's only a potential "best outcome" for those who agree on certain parameters. Otherwise, it's a lost cause.

In any case, as per previous posts ... this mod isn't really telling you what to do or how. It's just giving you the structure to run an adventure. As part of an anthology, I assume there was a pretty tight word count limit and the actual prisoner 13 is really more of a McGuffin to introduce a cool location than anything.

I don't know how this should be advertised, but I think if you find it lacking from a direction point of view it's because it's just not that kind of mod. Fortunately you didn't have to pay anything for this one, so you could get an idea of what the anthology is all about. Perhaps this is something that they'll continue to do? Who knows. Maybe they could label things that way, maybe not. But they don't have the word count (or capability, really) to explore every option and the danger with trying to do that is that it then limits the imagination of the people running and playing the game. If I didn't know how to run this, I'd be looking at the DmsGuild or finding a forum to discuss.

 

[Steampunkette]

I had this question regarding mind flayers and anti-magic. It looks like originally mind flayer mind blast was magically emitted. Then Volo's Guide removed the "magically" part or made it optional IIRC. But then in Monsters of the Multiverse it went back to "magically". I'm going by memory, don't recall exactly.

Point is: I thought about it, I interpretated that 5E submits that psionics is a form of magic (like primal or divine or whatnot) and that made sense to me, and I went with it. So in my game, it does NOT negate either question.

Plus I believe IIRC that the adventure explicitly calls it magical tattoos, not psionic tattoos.

Oh, you're ABSOLUTELY right. Psionics -are- Magic in 5e. That's been the case since the PHB dropped and people sent questions to Sage Advice about it.

But for this one adventure: they work in the antimagic prison where all other magic ceases function and are therefore not magic.

Likely through the writer or editor's oversight.

 

[Emoshin]

You forgot: DMs who accept that the mod doesn't tell you how to run it. It just sets up the environment, let's you know who's who and what their motivations are along with some insight into who they are. It's an outline for an adventure in a sense, much like Dragon Heist which is mostly a source book for Waterdeep with an intro module.

I don't agree that I forgot that (as you claimed).

In your case, what is the DM doing exactly with the adventure? Is the DM changing anything about it?
If yes, "DMs who read this adventure and say maybe I want to run it but I don't like it as is and I will change it"
If not, "DMs who read this adventure and say I want to run it as is"

Perhaps my exact wording doesn't suit you or represent you 100%, in which case you could be right to point that out, but I didn't forget how DMs assess modules differently.

In any case, as per previous posts ... this mod isn't really telling you what to do or how. It's just giving you the structure to run an adventure. As part of an anthology, I assume there was a pretty tight word count limit and the actual prisoner 13 is really more of a McGuffin to introduce a cool location than anything.

I don't know how this should be advertised, but I think if you find it lacking from a direction point of view it's because it's just not that kind of mod. Fortunately you didn't have to pay anything for this one, so you could get an idea of what the anthology is all about. Perhaps this is something that they'll continue to do? Who knows. Maybe they could label things that way, maybe not. But they don't have the word count (or capability, really) to explore every option and the danger with trying to do that is that it then limits the imagination of the people running and playing the game. If I didn't know how to run this, I'd be looking at the DmsGuild or finding a forum to discuss.

See above. EDIT: and most specifically around "best outcomes". I don't feel it is productive to respond to you about your suggestion when we don't even agree on the same parameters.

 

[Oofta]

At the risk of embroiling myself in this particular debate, I would have some questions...

We know that:

• The prisoner has these magical tattoos, to telepathically coordinate agents throughout Faerûn and beyond (presumably when she is outside her cell)
• Each cell is permanently blanketed in antimagic (9th level)
• There is other magic around the prison, like arcane lock (2nd level)

Now I like to do a bit of due diligence when it comes to worldbuilding:

Question #1: If this "magitech" prison has the ability to do things like 9th level antimagic, do they also have the ability to do 1st level detect magic? I'd say yes.

I'd say that's not a valid conclusion. There are various spells that have a long lasting specific effect in an area but does not do ongoing active magic. In addition, there are ways to hide magic.

Question #2: Whoever designed this "magitech" prison, are they relatively resourceful and intelligent? I'd say yes.

Question #3: Is it plausible that, when at any point upon or during incarceration, that prisoners be subject to a detect magic scan? Given #1 and #2, I'd say yes.

Question #4: Would it be paramount for the prison to nullify her tattoos, preventing her continuing crimes? I'd say 100% yes.

Question #5: Have many different concerns been raised by various posters on this thread -- such as how the PCs are expected to assess the tattoo is a key and so much more -- and probably elsewhere online and offline? I'd say definitely!

See my answer to question #1. For that matter, this prison could be located here because there was a pre-existing anti-magic zone of unknown origin. You're building questions 2-5 on an assumption about question #1.

Question #6: Given #5, could there be a different more cohesive story that could have been written that would not have put us in this awkward situation we find ourselves here right now? I'd say: beyond a doubt.

It's not telling you what to do, just what the situation is. I don't personally have a problem with that.

Question #7: What does all of this mean ultimately? Well, we have a number of proposed solutions. I know what I would do, but it does seem like people cannot agree on the best outcome that appeals to everyone. This is probably a question that will never be solved.

It shouldn't be "solved" for everyone who can potentially play this because the answer depend on the people at the table. Maybe the group works with the warden and creates a phony ledger. Maybe they subdue the prisoner, cut off her hand and then heal her. Maybe they do any number of things I haven't thought of. This isn't a railroad, it's not up to the author of the module to decide how you resolve it. That's up to the individual DM and group.

 

[Oofta]

I don't agree that I forgot that (as you claimed).

In your case, what is the DM doing exactly with the adventure? Is the DM changing anything about it?
If yes, "DMs who read this adventure and say maybe I want to run it but I don't like it as is and I will change it"
If not, "DMs who read this adventure and say I want to run it as is"

Perhaps my exact wording doesn't suit you or represent you 100%, in which case you could be right to point that out, but I didn't forget how DMs assess modules differently.


See above.

Meh. Semantics. I don't need to change it, running it as it is presumes you follow some predefined solution and not an alternative solution not provided.