Was I too vague?

[Voadam]

i liked what you did. however i can understand how frustrated the party was, if it was me i'd try throwing stuff through the wall, maybe summened creatures but this suggestion i found very good (although if the have an indiana jones buff, its a no brainer):



Z

I wasn't even thinking of IJ when I came up with it. Now you've got me wondering if I unconsciously pulled that out from the scene or truly independently came up with that answer as a possibility.

 

[ThirdWizard]

PS. I really dislike the concept of having Knowledge or Spellcraft skill rolls always (or often) getting PCs out of the fire when they get stumped.

It's about infinitely more fun than sitting around doing nothing when there is actually no danger present. Scenario 1 above is basically a useless time sink. The PCs are in no danger and can in no way not get out of the predicament short of never doing anything for the rest of the campaign. Yet, the game slows down to a crawl as the PCs get absolutely nowhere. The game becomes more boring, and the PCs eventually figure out in some way or another that they just take a few steps to the right and they get through.

Besides, the whole point of Spellcraft is to recognise spells and magical effects. Not allowing a Spellcraft check is like not allowing the rogue to use Climb or the fighter to Jump. If your adventure is disrupted by simple skill checks, its time to reconsider the adventure, not berate the Players for not realizing the spell effect when the Player has no way of finding out themself. There was no reason for the Players to know that they can't walk back through the wall, however, there is good reason to think that a spellcaster would know.

 

[Mistwell]

PS. I really dislike the concept of having Knowledge or Spellcraft skill rolls always (or often) getting PCs out of the fire when they get stumped. People should use their own brains, not rely solely on good skills helping out. One of our 6th level PCs has a Spellcraft of 18 and it is sometimes mildly annoying that it is so high (+9 +5 Int +2 Know Arc +2 feat) since there are quite a few different rolls he (for all intents and purposes) cannot fail (or rarely fails) at a relatively low character level.

And there are creatures the fighter will auto-hit unless they roll a 1. And undead that will be turned no matter what the cleric rolls. And spells that will kill certain creatures even if they make their save for half.

People who invest in skills shouldn't be benefitted or punished any more than any other character for choosing to go that route rather than a different route. If they put that many skill points into spellcraft, they should get the benefit of the skill unless the DM says BEFORE they took that route that you would nerf the skill if it suddenly starts to annoy the DM, so they have the opportunity to make a different decision on where to invest things.

I am not saying that you made any change at all (in fact it's not even clear you are the DM)....just that, from the perspective of the player who made that investment in that skill, he or she probably views things your character does as annoyingly easy as well, or things other characters in the party are doing (if you are the DM).

 

[KarinsDad]

It's about infinitely more fun than sitting around doing nothing when there is actually no danger present. Scenario 1 above is basically a useless time sink. The PCs are in no danger and can in no way not get out of the predicament short of never doing anything for the rest of the campaign. Yet, the game slows down to a crawl as the PCs get absolutely nowhere. The game becomes more boring, and the PCs eventually figure out in some way or another that they just take a few steps to the right and they get through.

Besides, the whole point of Spellcraft is to recognise spells and magical effects. Not allowing a Spellcraft check is like not allowing the rogue to use Climb or the fighter to Jump. If your adventure is disrupted by simple skill checks, its time to reconsider the adventure, not berate the Players for not realizing the spell effect when the Player has no way of finding out themself. There was no reason for the Players to know that they can't walk back through the wall, however, there is good reason to think that a spellcaster would know.

And what happens when the spellcaster fails his Spellcraft roll?

No real difference than the scenario as presented.

Do you give the player a second and a third and a fifth Spellcraft roll until he finally rolls high enough? Knowledge checks and most Spellcraft checks are no retry.

Do you lower the DC of the Spellcraft check to ensure that he makes the roll?


What's the point of the game if challenging situations do not remain challenging?

What good is spoon feeding the players? Sure, you might get them out of a self imposed boring situation, but you are also encouraging the status quo to be "rolls get us out of mental challenges, our minds do not".

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with a roll assisting or even giving the answer if high enough. But, I do not want the game to rely on "information type" rolls because there is no guarantee that any given roll will be made.


Btw, I also think that DMs have to be cognizant of unusual situations like the scenarios listed and they should prepare ahead of time for alternative solutions. Both of these scenarios are ones where it is expected that players might bang their heads against the wall, so if a DM is going to introduce such scenarios, he has to come up with a series of "solutions" as well so that the players have multiple ways to solve the problem. Otherwise, what does the DM expect?

 

[Artoomis]

...During the fight I kept advising the Wizard player that he sees 'strong' magical auras around the objects...highly magical

I think you did GREAT except for this part:

"Strong" magic has a very specific game meaning of a 7th-9th level spell or 12th-20th caster level for items. That's pretty powerful for Dispel Magic.

The clue should have been "faint" magic - that's 3rd or lower spell level or 5th or lower caster level for an item. Better yet, you should have said "very faint" - which is not a game term, but would have been a really good clue to try Dispel Magic.

Also, "faintly magical" rather than "highly magical" might have enouraged an attempt at Dispel Magic as well.

You might have also described this effect as being very unusual, not a thing he's heard of in his magical research in the past. That might have triggered him to try something unusual, like Dispel Magic - which is not really the normal answer in this scenario with mutiple objects each with it's own aura.

Unfortunately, you actually (unknowingly) DISCOURAGED the use of Dispel Magic as your clues seemed to indicate it would have little chance of working and, even then, would only probably affect one of the objects temporarily - remember that you described each object as having it's own aura. The caster level of a 7th level spell is 13th level, meaning the DC would be at least 24 (or 23 for caster level 12 item) , not an easy one to beat unless this is a fairly high level party. The way you stressed the strength of the magic, I would have assume a ascter level of more like 15th or hiogher, meaning a DC of 26 or higher, and that's tough for a normal Dispel Magic.

Some sort of Anti-Magic effect (like "Antimagic Field"), however, if available, should have been an obvious choice as that generally ignores the power of the magic.

 

[Ditch]

This is directed at anyone who feels Spellcraft checks ruin the fun:

Unless the DM picked your players from the local Mensa chapter, you really should allow Spellcraft checks to aid in situations like that. I play with some old college buddies of mine and we are all pretty smart, at least when D&D is the subject. We still rely on d20 rolls to simulate an INT score of 20+. As a player you can't be expected to roleplay a 200 IQ, which is about what your level 10 wizards probably have. A solid spellcraft check just feeds the player info that he/she probably didn't know (or just wasn't thinking about), but his character would absolutely know (hence the high roll ). How he chooses to use that info is up to him.

"Ah.. you made your Spellcraft check. You notice that the colors are much duller from this side, unlike the prismatic spells you recall seeing while studying at the arcane academy."

Maybe hint around that this is a modified spell and may be safe to exit. It's just one more resource at the player's disposal. If they bothered putting ranks into it (and what mage wouldn't??) then they should be able to use it every chance they choose to.

 

[Warmage-in-Onley]

I agree with Ditch. And Spellcraft seems especially warranted here, the party's Wizard actually went through the wall - that's a lot of contact with the phenomenon to help justify trying the check, maybe even once before going through and once after.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And what happens when the spellcaster fails his Spellcraft roll?

Then you're back to square one. I never said give everything to them. But, for those who have put the ranks into the skill, I would find not allowing them to use the skill when it applies or even to do so while grumbliing about those Players not figuring things out on their own to be a pretty weak DMing philosophy.

 

[Bront]

The last divination is too cryptic, even knowing the wall is one way I can't see how "The most difficult journeys begin with a single step" is supposed to indicate "walk through from this side"

Something cryptic might be "Have faith and stride forth." which contains the explicit instruction stride forth from here and that all they need is faith that they will be OK.

I agree in the first scenerio. Something like "All journies begin with the first step" may have been better.

 

[Bront]

Your second scenerio, well, that sounds like either a dense Wizard, or he didn't have those spells to deal with it prepared.