Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
Oh, I would have given the PCs a chance to notice that although the mimic appeared to be a chest, it was actually a creature.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Toll the Chest
- Thread starter iserith
- Start date
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I wouldn't. Not unless they did something like cast a spell on it to see. The mimic's CR includes it's special ability to flawlessly appear to be an object. Take that away and it's less dangerous and not worth as much XP. Clues like @iserith's encounter above are fine. You aren't detecting the mimic itself, but are possibly inferring its existence through other clues.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
There's a lot of things that are quickly going to make D&D players paranoid. Like statues. They almost always come to life. Why? Because it's cool, of course, but if you use constructs like golems or caryatid columns, or creatures like mimics or gargoyles, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you.
And yeah, you can subvert expectations at any time to punish the players for their paranoia- but that feels cruel since they likely have good reasons to be paranoid in the first place. Like that example above of a chest that explodes if you hit it with a firebolt.
In a world where anything can be a trap or a monster in disguise, it's not paranoia, it's good sense, and punishing someone for listening to their survival instincts seems pretty unfair.
If you want to catch your players off-guard that badly, don't use a mimic, use something like a phantom fungus, which is legitimately invisible.
And yeah, you can subvert expectations at any time to punish the players for their paranoia- but that feels cruel since they likely have good reasons to be paranoid in the first place. Like that example above of a chest that explodes if you hit it with a firebolt.
In a world where anything can be a trap or a monster in disguise, it's not paranoia, it's good sense, and punishing someone for listening to their survival instincts seems pretty unfair.
If you want to catch your players off-guard that badly, don't use a mimic, use something like a phantom fungus, which is legitimately invisible.
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
I don't take it away. False Appearance (like invisibility) allows a creature to try to hide even when it is out in the open. That's where the mimic's expertise in Stealth comes into play. Without False Appearance (and a successful Stealth check), the mimic in the middle of the room would be noticed right away by anyone who entered.
A difference in interpretation between myself and the DM in the OP has led to some confusion on my part about how the encounter had been handled up to that point, so let me just say that if any of the PCs entering the room we're keeping watch for hidden creatures, I would have rolled a Stealth check for the mimic, contested by the passive Perception scores of those characters, to determine if its False Appearance would allow it to stay hidden from them.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
We all rule things differently and your way seems reasonable, but the ability makes no mention of stealth or allowing a creature to try and hide out in the open. It simply says it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object. If a perception check can reveal it, it's not indistinguishable at all.
"False Appearance (Object Form Only). While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object."
On the other hand, the lore says "nearly unrecognizable," so WotC has contradicted itself again, leading to both rulings being reasonable.
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
It says it's indistinguishable while it remains motionless, but what determines if a creature can hold still enough to avoid detection when unseen? In my games, that's the result of a Stealth check.We all rule things differently and your way seems reasonable, but the ability makes no mention of stealth or allowing a creature to try and hide out in the open. It simply says it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object. If a perception check can reveal it, it's not indistinguishable at all.
"False Appearance (Object Form Only). While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object."
On the other hand, the lore says "nearly unrecognizable," so WotC has contradicted itself again, leading to both rulings being reasonable.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It's whole purpose is to be still for days, weeks or however long it takes something to wander by. As I said, both interpretations are reasonable.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
The False Apperence trait has nothing to do with stealth. It makes the creature indistinguishable from any normal object of its kind. If you don't expect a normal chest to make a stealth check then a mimic doesn't need to make a stealth check. That's why mimics are not proficent in stealth.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Maybe...
I mean, Yes, most (virtually all?) of the time the PCs are going to auto-fail on perceiving a mimic in Object form. However, I would leave room for an outlier situation where, with the right approach, it might be possible for a PC to succeed on a Perception check contested by the mimic's Stealth check for the PC to perceive a mimic in Object form. A check that is very likely made by the PC with disadvantage and/or made by the mimic with advantage. The players collectively are way more clever than I am and I wouldn't want to shut that door completely to every possibility here (especially if that door was a mimic).
They are proficient in Stealth in 5e. See MM pg 220
Last edited:
Similar Threads
