For reference: There is a duell in the module where a shaman tries to secretly help one NPC by continously casting Cure Wounds on him while supposedly only helping him "stand up" after he intentionally let‘s himself fall prone. To spot this, a PC has to specifically declare checking for interventions a then suceed a DC 15 perception-check despite being within earshot…
You can really tell that they wrote parts of the module before publishing the rules…
3 months ago by jounniy to c/rpgmemes
MSBBritain 27 points 3 months ago
I tend to rule that any components are "assumed to be in the materials pouch", unless there is a significant (relative to party wealth) gold price attached, in which case they need to be bought. In practice I found that only really seems to apply to resurrection spells.
From there, the only thing that matters to me is can you reasonably perform or (roll to hide to perform) the semantic and vocal components, as well as get out the materials of your materials pouch in your current state.
In practice this means I can ignore components 85% of the time, but can still temporarily de-power my players if needed for some reason.
Doc_Crankenstein 14 points 3 months ago
your first paragraph is literally the book rules for spell components. You either have a focus/components pouch for mundane components and anything with a gold amount needs to be spent to cast.
Very few spells actually have a costly material component for it to ever come up anyway.
Can't hide somatic or verbal components without being a Sorcerer for the meta magic though. Otherwise you're literally undermining one of the key features of that class.
Spell components exist literally for the reason stated at the end: so the DM can keep in check the power of the spellcaster as needed for the scenario by limiting what spells are available to be cast.
Doc_Crankenstein 1 point 3 months ago
Magical objects at least always give off an aura that makes it obvious they are exceptional. And magic items are usually always at least 100G anyways, if you go by the books "item price by rarity" scale, so it's an equivalent trade off
Or it would be if not for one tiny thing....
You can alternatively spend one short rest in physical contact with the item (Per raw but the variant option of only getting a vague sense of the items capability/strength is better imo) to tell the exact same things as Identity.
Identity is way too expensive for what it does per raw. You still have to touch the item, so it doesn't prevent curses, and can do the same effect as sitting with it for half an hour. The only thing it does otherwise is give details on any spells that have been cast on the object, not just its innate magical properties, but that is so situationally useful to be worth 100G.
jounniy 1 point 3 months ago
Glad someone else knows it. As a player who frequently had to transcribe spells into roll20, I always just assume other people know the components certain spells take to cast and then end up confused if they don’t.
Witchfire 4 points 3 months ago
RAW verbal and somatic components give you away similar to making an attack. That's why Subtle Spell and similar exist. There's no "roll to cast secretly" mechanic on purpose, the benefit of being hidden is that you get advantage on your first attack
NightFantom 12 points 3 months ago
But the shaman's no player character so the rules don't apply to him.
In 3e pretty much every npc was fully buildable from existing classes, in 5e they just stopped doing that. If the module says he can do sneaky cure wounds, he can do sneaky cure wounds.
jounniy 16 points 3 months ago
They are using an official statblock which lacks this ability. The only way the shaman can have it is if the DM added it themself. And since this is a prewrittem module, it really shouldn’t have such oversights, especially since newer, inexperienced DM‘s likely aren’t familiar enough with the rules to know this, which makes it at least decently likely that they’ll just assume everyone can cast stealthily.
NightFantom -5 points 3 months ago
What do you mean official statblock? As in it's a statblock from the dmg/mm? Then they can still just tack in things they want/need (as can you, as dm).
I agree they probably could (and should) have better specified that this diverges from the stat block, but the point of the module is to try and cater to everyone, including rewarding players that took points in perception here apparently.
I think it's got its pros and cons, I'm very fond of seeing all the rules and following them, even as a dm, so 3e (and Pathfinder) were always more my thing, but having played 5e nowadays (and other, even more "you have a 5 damage power, flavour it however you like" like mutants & masterminds) I kind of like the dm style of "know your players, make exceptions where it would increase enjoyment and/or add an interesting challenge without breaking the future fun of the game" too.
Arguably that's the difference between DM and GM. A DM is just running a dungeon. A GM is running the whole game, rules and all.
jounniy 7 points 3 months ago
Yes they could. But they did not. That's what I'm crititicising. Perception is one of the most used skills ever. It would not have hurt not to use it here. And if you really want to, then give her some kind of ability that actually let's her do that, because these kind of things can be missleading to new players/DMs and put extra work on the DM.
And I really like less strict systems like M&M too, but if you write something in a more rigid system, you should adhere to the rules of that system. Or in this case: You shouldn't start writing full on adventures in an unfinished system.
NightFantom 0 points 3 months ago
But that's my point, 5e is already not a rigid system.
gaiety 10 points 3 months ago
its also the lowest rated official module, after its prequel hoard of the dragon queen
I did run it and it was a fun game all the same, but i made soooo many changes. if i could go back in time I'd teach myself how to make dragon encounters richer
shevek 1 point 3 months ago
It is the first long module I've run. Still going after 3 years (we're slow). My players say they're enjoying it but I've spent so long trying to fix things I might as well be home brewing.
I think anyone that wants to use a module to simplify GMing (like me) should choose anything else. Anyone that's ok with home brewing doesn't need the module. Maybe read the plot overview at the beginning and fill in the blanks.
MSBBritain 1 point 3 months ago
I mean, I don't see an issue with hiding the casting of a spell from people. I do think it should probably be the other way around for players (do a slight of hand to hide the semantic/material components, and beat passive perception), but in principle I don't see why you shouldn't be able to hide those?
kichae 8 points 3 months ago
msbbritain@lemmy.world The issue us that it breaks with the established systems of "reality" without explanation or cause. It's an arbitrary deviation from the established and shared understanding of how things work, with the only available explanatiin being "because I said so, so shut up and don't question me".
It's one thing if there's the equivalent of the Conceal Spell feat and actiin from Pathfinder being leveraged here,but tbat comes with both a build tax and an action tax. If there's no price being paid, it's a little bit of a "fuck you" to the players.
jounniy 3 points 3 months ago
Thanks for pointing this out, that’s better than what I could've said to explain it. The DM can always make changes without adhering to any limitations, but if they are a good DM, they'll at least try to be consistent. And that’s the least I expect from professional writers. (And I similarly expect them to wait for the actual rules of the system to be published before writing an adventure.)
go to feed...
go to feed...
People actually pay attention to spell components? I’ve been playing D&D for 20 years and literally every campaign I’ve ever played in just ignored them.
save