Ok, so I am running a campaign where a my players are transporting a mysterious orb. One PC was looking for info from an old associate (a wizard who seeks power) and the wizard gave the PC a Pouch of Protection to keep the Orb safe from scrying, detection, or other magical interference. The pouch was actually designed to transport the item back to the wizard for their own purposes. Essentially if an item is placed in the pouch it is transported to the wizards keep and replaced with a copy. The copy is tangible but mundane and disappears within 1 hour if removed from the pouch. Investigation of the copy can reveal the truth with a high DC21 Arcana check, or reasonable check to otherwise determine its false nature. If magic is used on the pouch (such as Detect Magic, etc) the pouch self destructs. So here is what happened.... The PC took the pouch back to their party, they were suspicious, so one of them tried an Arcana check to be sure the pouch was as it should be (I explained that there were symbols of protection inside, as there were to solidify the ruse) and they had a high Arcana check that beat the 21, but there was no copy yet so they just knew the symbols. One PC put a piton in the bag, closed it, activating the magic to replace with a copy, they removed the copy and felt fine with the results. They then placed the orb in the bag. My issue is I almost feel like I am being too sneaky, but the NPC who provided the bag was being very sneaky. Does this sound like a fair trick? If they check on the bag or contents they will get a chance to reveal the truth, or if the PC checks on the number of pitons in their supply they will find one missing.
I don't think you're being too sneaky personally. I think it's a cool idea off the vague glance I get from your description (there may be a number of qualifying factors that you didn't have the space to mention); trickery and deceit is a fun part of the game and this could lead into a very fun quest to get back once they realise it's a copy. As a player, I personally love this kind of trickery and spotting it, realising I got tricked and getting the chance to get back at the npc; it's no fun if I spot it all the time.
Having said all that, the one thing I would have done differently from you is re the roll to inspect the bag. Even if the wizard used actual protection symbols, there would have be to some kind of magic implanted in the bag to create the actual desired effect. I think that that could be harder to spot than discerning that the item is a copy - because it's less about sensing the magical nature of the object and more about spotting the primary magic concealed under a layer of secondary (I'm assuming that he put real protection magic on the bag here) and you didn't say the exact roll but if got a really high arcana roll and didn't pick up on the trick to the bag, as a player I think I'd feel like I was being cheated - that would my personal feeling at least.
The CR for Arcana inspection was CR22 but that was for detecting the item as a fake. The bag itself does have actual protection runes, however the magic that transports it does not have a visible component. So the way I saw it was at least one member of the part has the ability to cast Detect Magic, the chance to reveal the trick would also destroy the bag, but it would prevent the party from falling for the trap. IMO an Arcana check would reveal the information about the runes and anything else the player might be able to determine through physical evidence. They did not choose the do anything other than rely on one PCs Arcana check, which revealed the runes to be for protection, and not further investigation of the bag was used. And the PC who received the bag had reason to believe the wizard who gave it may have been interested in the orbs power for personal gain. I like being tricky as a DM, sometimes I have a hard time letting my tricks happen, because as a real person I actually care about the effect of my actions...
I think it is a cool idea. However, you had a requirement of a DC 21 Arcana check to reveal the truth of a copied item (which might be a bit high since the bag replaced the item with something mundane and not magical). Yet when the character beat that number examining the bag itself you decided that the nature of the bag couldn't be defeated by an Arcana check on the bag only on the item that had been placed inside it and only after the trap had been sprung.
Presumably, casting Identify on the bag would have caused it to disappear? Identify cast as a ritual would likely have been the best way to deal with figuring out what the bag would do ... and when it disappeared the players would have an answer of sorts.
I'm not sure this is the DM being too sneaky. This would seem to me it could be the DM deciding that it is really difficult/impossible for the characters to determine the nature of the bag until after they place the magic item in the bag and trigger the plot twist you want to have happen. It is important to keep in mind that things which seem obvious from the DM perspective are often very murky from the player/character perspective.
When the characters discover that despite their high Arcana rolls and tests that the item has disappeared the players will wonder if there was anything they could have done to prevent it and the DM could say yes but it required several steps (which the party isn't actually that likely to come up with) since the only option would have been to place a magic item in the bag (one which they didn't mind losing - and players almost always mind losing magic items), pull out the replica, and then either pass a DC21 Arcana check examining the replica or cast detect magic and then examine replica thus determining that it is no longer magical - or perhaps cast Identify.
How have you been running determining the properties of other magic items in the campaign? That might help you decide the best ways for the characters to figure out what the bag might do before using it. Also, since the characters are suspicious, I wonder why they approached the wizard in the first place? I also wonder that the wizard had a ready made magic item just waiting to help him steal a magic item by having some dupes put it there for him. In addition, will this wizard be able to stand up to the righteous anger from the party when they come looking for the magic item? This is either a plot twist that the DM wants to create a BBEG or a distraction from whatever the main campaign might be as the players switch focus to recovering the item that they will easily figure out that the wizard has. That could go two ways - either the wizard is far too powerful for the party and they will have to bide their time and give up on the item or the wizard is an opponent they can defeat in which case the party is most likely to go after the item and recover it unless the DM steps in with another plot twist where either the wizard has disappeared and can't be found or the wizard escapes from the characters by teleporting out or similar - and then can't be found for a while.
So, the question becomes a bit more than the cool theft mechanism but where does the plot of the campaign go as a result of these events?
-------------------
By the way, Detect Magic isn't cast on an item, it is cast on the spell caster and enhances their senses so that they can see magic. I'm not sure how the bag would know that there is a creature that can see magic within 30' since the spell isn't cast on the bag - the spellcaster is just looking at the bag.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any."
Personally, I'd have the bag work fine with Detect Magic - it would just reveal an aura of Abjuration and Conjuration magic. Conjuration happens to be the magic type associated with teleportation.
"I think it is a cool idea. However, you had a requirement of a DC 21 Arcana check to reveal the truth of a copied item (which might be a bit high since the bag replaced the item with something mundane and not magical)."
__Good Point, I will lower that DC to say 10, hasn't been used yet so should be fair to do at this point.
"Yet when the character beat that number examining the bag itself you decided that the nature of the bag couldn't be defeated by an Arcana check on the bag only on the item that had been placed inside it and only after the trap had been sprung."
___ My figuring was an Arcana check alone would reveal the nature of the protection runes, which it did, there was no clear investigation point given when I asked what the PC was trying to determine aside from the runes.
"Presumably, casting Identify on the bag would have caused it to disappear? Identify cast as a ritual would likely have been the best way to deal with figuring out what the bag would do ... and when it disappeared the players would have an answer of sorts."
___Correct, Identify would have been the best route, and to your later point you are on point about detect magic, it would not destroy the item because of the nature of the spell.
"When the characters discover that despite their high Arcana rolls and tests that the item has disappeared the players will wonder if there was anything they could have done to prevent it and the DM could say yes but it required several steps (which the party isn't actually that likely to come up with) since the only option would have been to place a magic item in the bag (one which they didn't mind losing - and players almost always mind losing magic items), pull out the replica, and then either pass a DC21 Arcana check examining the replica or cast detect magic and then examine replica thus determining that it is no longer magical - or perhaps cast Identify."
___My players know my style pretty well and I don't do a ton of hand holding/leading. I offer loose options. I was frankly surprised they did not use detect magic on the bag as they had previously on the orb and a PC has Detect Magic as an innate spell. I do not think anyone has Identify but they were very quick to put the orb in the bag.
"How have you been running determining the properties of other magic items in the campaign?"
____ My general expectation is to let the PCs determine the best way, based on past situation if the players know the object is magic they might start with a Detect Magic to see what school, then Arcana if appropriate to confirm details, or research in a library or arcane school. I was frankly shocked when putting a piton in the bag was and an arcana check was the only route taken.
"That might help you decide the best ways for the characters to figure out what the bag might do before using it. Also, since the characters are suspicious, I wonder why they approached the wizard in the first place?"
___The PC went to a Wizard they knew from where they grew up, that ran an Insight and determined the wizard was a seeker of power, and the PC held back a lot of information due to the lack of trust.
There is a definite plan to make this wizard a baddie to deal with, and the wizard unwittingly drew the attention of a lich due to taking the orb, a lich the party is looking for.
The thing that sticks out to me is the missing piton. I guess a character could go months without needing to use their pitons, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do an overall gear check, probably daily. Just part of keeping swords sharp and component pouches full, the kind of thing everyone pretty much hand waves as part of a long rest. I’d give them a passive perception to see if they notice it’s missing, with the DC dropping every day, because sooner or later, they’ll be checking that piece of gear, just to make sure nothing’s happened to it, like water got in and it would start to rust. I think that eventually, they’d notice.
And I’d makes use of background/backstory and other RP factors. If the character is generally meticulous, they’ll notice it sooner, if they’re a slob, later.
The PC took the pouch back to their party, they were suspicious, so one of them tried an Arcana check to be sure the pouch was as it should be (I explained that there were symbols of protection inside, as there were to solidify the ruse) and they had a high Arcana check that beat the 21, but there was no copy yet so they just knew the symbols. One PC put a piton in the bag, closed it, activating the magic to replace with a copy, they removed the copy and felt fine with the results. They then placed the orb in the bag. My issue is I almost feel like I am being too sneaky, but the NPC who provided the bag was being very sneaky. Does this sound like a fair trick? If they check on the bag or contents they will get a chance to reveal the truth, or if the PC checks on the number of pitons in their supply they will find one missing.
It sounds like you gave the party no way to discover the scam, since they took every precaution and made every skill check you asked them to, and you still didn't give them the info they were looking for
If it's a railroad-y kind of campaign, that could be fine, but if it's not I would prepare for some disgruntled players when they eventually find out the bag is rigged. Because again... once they showed that they were suspicious of the bag, what exactly would they have had to do for you to tell them it wasn't what it seemed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
With those precautions and such as high arcana roll, it imo would have been fair to at least confirm that something about the bag does indeed seem a bit off, but what exactly it is might take longer or detect magic or identify.
But there is no right or wrong to these situations. It all depends on the nature of the game. If it's a shades of grey type of game game of plotting and deceit or a straight forward black and white good vs evil game.
To me the sneakiness isn't the issue as much as the lack of verisimilitude. To make a game seem real a DM or storyteller should consider the verisimilitude (the appearance of it being real and true) of the situations. Another way to look at this is, "would you allow the PCs to do this very same trick to NPC's without serious repercussions.
How real and true versus contrived does it feel that the following all are occurring:
A PC has an old associate they trusted to go to about this orb
The evil wizard type person has managed to fool the PC about their relationship previously
The evil wizard type person continues to be able to bluff the PC about their true intentions and relationship
The PCs can't determine the important information about the item from an arcana check on the magic item itself
The PCs can only determine the important information by specifically making an arcana check on the mundane item it creates
The pouch has a new custom magical spell applied to it, that the players probably don't know exists, that self destructs on the trigger of a specific spell meant to figure out what the pouch does.
The PCs test the pouch and still don't figure out the trick because they don't know what they don't know, to check the piton instead of the bag.
To me this seems more contrived than true. Contrived experiences will feel more hollow and take away player agency. This can also lead the players to look at situations as PCs versus DM instead of it being a collaborative experience where the DM adjudicates the world.
I mean, they did not use Detect Magic. Identify, or even take the 1 hour short rest Identify option. One of them chose to do an Aracana check and throw a piton in, but I respect the opinion.
I am still considering ditching the trick, because I want my players to have fun, but the thing for me is this was a one shot turned extended campaign and I wanted to keep things interesting
I don't think you need to ditch the trick - I still think potentially that a high enough arcana check might have tipped something (not necessarily given away the game but just given them a kind of hint like "there's double layers of illusion magic on this item which seems like a lot, but of course it's very well-made" or something) but on the flip side of that if a PC can figure out our tricks all the time because of a high roll then it makes it very hard for us to fool them and that for me as a player and DM is part of the fun of the game; the air of mystery -
you let them examine the bag, you had clear cut parameters for how they should go about doing it and their methods fell short of that. Putting a non-magical item in there wouldn't prove anything because even if they checked the piton, it would be as mundane as the original. Furthermore, your players know how you like to play. They could have done more, but they decided they'd done enough
So I think it's a good trick. I think at this point, you should bite the bullet, play it out and see how it goes. See how the players react when they realise the trick. Ask them how they felt about the way you ran things. If they're unhappy or feel like it was a bit unfair, then it's a learning experience for you and you apologise and move on. If they're frustrated but in that kind of dang DM that was a good trick, you got us sort of way then it's a good experience for you and you can chalk it up as a win. Either way, you'll learn something.
The only real question I think you need to answer definitively for yourself was did you mistake on your call re the high arcana roll and here are some questions you can ask yourself to help answer that question:
Did you have a DC set for discerning the additional hidden magical nature about the bag?
Did you decide in advance how the additional magic was concealed?
What level are the party - is 21+ (whatever they rolled) a super high roll for them that they wouldn't normally get or are they a high level group with a very decent arcana score(s)?
How thoroughly did they search? Did they turn it inside out, try to scry/divine the piton they put with in, did they hunt under the seams for hidden magical symbol, etc? OR Was it a more casual check over?
If you think you made a mistake - that you didn't prepare properly for them discerning the magic of the bag or that 21+ was a super high roll and in retrospect you think should have given them more for it - then make sure to let them know that they seem to be missing a piton; you're not giving the game away - if they check the bag the orb is there and if they take it out examine it then maybe they realise something, maybe they don't, but if you don't think you made a mistake then let it play out and it will learning experience for them. They'll know in the future, we need to be extra cautious. As long as you let this play out, it becomes a learning experience for you and your players (and players need to be able to forgive DM mistakes, regardless of whether this is one or not. We have so much to remember and to think about and we have to improvise on the fly a lot - we're going to make mistakes. It's an inevitable part of the game for us - and our players do to - so when we play this game we have to accept mistakes will happen).
I think this is a good trick. I don't think it's contrived personally. There are spells that could do what the wizard wanted - an adaption of Drawmiji's Instant Summons for example - and the players are never going to know every spell in the game either; they should know that - they could have still discovered the magic if they checked deeper. Apparently they thought their tests were sufficient were however ... so learning experience.
Furthermore, tricks like these make the game more fun. A good dnd campaign needs tricks, puzzles, mystery, etc (in my opinion), not just combat to be interesting. The most important question you have to ask yourself is, is this a fun trick for you and your players? If you're not sure, play it out and learn from the result. If you are, then you already know what decision you should make.
Sorry for the long post - I do have some comments about noticing the missing piton or not, but I've said a lot already so I'll finish this here for now - I do hope this was helpful. Good luck.
I mean, they did not use Detect Magic. Identify, or even take the 1 hour short rest Identify option. One of them chose to do an Aracana check and throw a piton in, but I respect the opinion.
OK. You said in your initial post:
so one of them tried an Arcana check to be sure the pouch was as it should be
Did the party say, "We want to make an Arcana check to make sure the pouch is as it should be?"
Or did they say, "We want to examine the pouch to make sure it's as it should be", and you said, "Make an Arcana check."
If it's the former, then yeah, maybe they made some assumptions that will come back to bite them
If it's the latter, then I again have to ask what they would have needed to do to figure out something was up with the pouch. Because they expressed suspicion, asked you how to proceed, passed the check you told them to make... and you still gave them no hints
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ok, so I am running a campaign where a my players are transporting a mysterious orb. One PC was looking for info from an old associate (a wizard who seeks power) and the wizard gave the PC a Pouch of Protection to keep the Orb safe from scrying, detection, or other magical interference. The pouch was actually designed to transport the item back to the wizard for their own purposes. Essentially if an item is placed in the pouch it is transported to the wizards keep and replaced with a copy. The copy is tangible but mundane and disappears within 1 hour if removed from the pouch. Investigation of the copy can reveal the truth with a high DC21 Arcana check, or reasonable check to otherwise determine its false nature. If magic is used on the pouch (such as Detect Magic, etc) the pouch self destructs. So here is what happened.... The PC took the pouch back to their party, they were suspicious, so one of them tried an Arcana check to be sure the pouch was as it should be (I explained that there were symbols of protection inside, as there were to solidify the ruse) and they had a high Arcana check that beat the 21, but there was no copy yet so they just knew the symbols. One PC put a piton in the bag, closed it, activating the magic to replace with a copy, they removed the copy and felt fine with the results. They then placed the orb in the bag. My issue is I almost feel like I am being too sneaky, but the NPC who provided the bag was being very sneaky. Does this sound like a fair trick? If they check on the bag or contents they will get a chance to reveal the truth, or if the PC checks on the number of pitons in their supply they will find one missing.
Players will frequently find ways to screw over NPCs and this is the kind of thing I would expect to see by a player. So, I have no issues with it being sneaky. Its you as a DM setting up the boundaries of the next part of the campaign's journey. I do feel like the high arcana check should've revealed something along the lines of symbols you recognise as being for protection and one that seems somehow different to what you expect. Given they were cautious and threw a piton in the bag however, I don't see what else they might have done without you outright telling them.
What I would expect is for players to be a bit annoyed that their arcana check didn't hack it. I would suggest something along the lines of 21 being a limited success (something odd about the bag), 25 being a solid success (wait that one symbol has been modified in a unique way to have something to do with time...maybe one hour), and a 27 being an exceptional success (they reveal the exact purpose of the modified symbols and thus the bag.
Sadly, this is one thing D&D doesn't highlight to DMs often enough that other games bake right into the core mechanics. Tiered DC checks. Having the Failure with Consequences, Failure with no consequence, limited success, success, and success with style (similar to FATE) is a GMs best friend. I will often tier my DCs this way and will rarely tell my players what DC they're aiming for. This way if the player describes what they want to do, they roll and their roll disappoints me (because their method was fun, cool, or otherwise seems like it should have succeeded), I can adjust the DC down on the fly and the player doesn't know any different.
Having a fixed, single point DC is just plain boring and has long been the massive weakness in many D&D games.
They suggested they wanted to check it out, to the best of my memory it was "I want to take a look at the bag, can I make an Arcana check?" I said yes and asked what they were looking at at, they said that were checking out the symbols inside the bag. I told them the symbols they saw were definitely protection symbols and wards. Then they decided the right route to go was to use the piton to test the bag. The PC who received the bag had some reasons to distrust the bag being given, and it was way too convenient which usually red flags things for these players, they are suspicious of almost anything.
Did you have a DC set for discerning the additional hidden magical nature about the bag?
The idea I had was that a high Arcana check could reveal the trick of the bag if they had some extra info, like that they might learn with Detect Magic, or if they spent the time to Identify using the short rest focus mechanic. Other than that they would need to tell me what they are looking for. I don't use Investigation/Arcana/Etc. as catch alls and the player should lead me to what they are looking for/checking into.
Did you decide in advance how the additional magic was concealed?
Yes, I decided it was a transportation circle hidden by Illusion magic.
What level are the party - is 21+ (whatever they rolled) a super high roll for them that they wouldn't normally get or are they a high level group with a very decent arcana score(s)?
They are a level 8 party of Druid/Cleric/Bard/Fighter. The Fighter was the one who got the bag. She had suspicions after an insight check, the wizard tried asked if he could see the orb and only gave the pouch after he was told they did not have it with them. She presented it to the party, explaining a bit about the wizard and the interactions.
How thoroughly did they search? Did they turn it inside out, try to scry/divine the piton they put with in, did they hunt under the seams for hidden magical symbol, etc? OR Was it a more casual check over?
They did not thoroughly search, only one of them looked inside and did an Arcana check, and different one did the piton thing. I made the mistake of not establishing what everyones daily routines were prior to this playing out. I do sometime struggle with how much to lead checks/actions, but this is on brand for me.
They suggested they wanted to check it out, to the best of my memory it was "I want to take a look at the bag, can I make an Arcana check?" I said yes and asked what they were looking at at, they said that were checking out the symbols inside the bag. I told them the symbols they saw were definitely protection symbols and wards. Then they decided the right route to go was to use the piton to test the bag. The PC who received the bag had some reasons to distrust the bag being given, and it was way too convenient which usually red flags things for these players, they are suspicious of almost anything.
I'd suggest talking to your players once it's all resolved. It may be that they feel that the successful arcana check should have been enough to tell them something was iffy. Just lay out your reasons if it does become a problem.
1) Well I think you're entirely in the right there - letting such checks be a catch all makes things too easy. Players have a terrible habit of saying I want to investigate and assume that will tell them what they're supposed to be looking. However, the main point here is - you had a set idea for how they could discern the magic of the bag and they had the power to do those, it wasn't a hard think to think of, but they just decided not to do it => I don't think you're being sneaky
2) Well I mean the exterior had symbols in it for the protection enchantment, but were there any such symbols for concealing the additional magic - like was the transportation magic concealed by illusion to look other protection magic or was there an illusion placed over the bag so the transportation symbols weren't visible or ...
3) Well assuming everything is normal the maximum arcana bonus someone could have at that level is +11, but they don't have a necessarily intelligence or arcana based group so I'm going to assume it's actually lower so they might feel a little bit annoyed that they picked up on nothing with their very high arcana check which you said was 21+ - however, you had set ideas for how they could discern the secrets of the bag and they didn't do those and the way they described their search, there wasn't much to get from that Arcana check
4) It's on brand for me too - it's really hard to try and guess how much can they guess, am I leading them on too much, is this too easy or too tough.
Generally I personally wouldn't worry - from the sounds things, you had this properly planned out and they just weren't super thorough. They could have done more and the things they could have done were not obscure or unusual
"I made the mistake of not establishing what everyones daily routines were prior to this playing out." - We can't prepare for everything and it's not something we normally do (I don't do it in my games either). I have a few suggestions that might help:
1) How high is the passive perception of the person who owned the piton - that would give you a good base mark for how long it might take them to notice their piton is missing
2) Most of us aren't going to spend our mornings taking every thing out of our bags and checking them one by one so it wouldn't be illogical that they wouldn't notice for a while - however, what is the owner's character like? Are they fastidious? Are they paranoid? Or are they lazy and haphazard? Basically, the way they RP their character, do you think they'd be likely to notice the missing piton quickly or after a while?
Alternatively:
3) Roll a die (maybe a d100) or have them roll a die (if you think that won't raise an immediate red herring for them) and have set scores in mind for how long it will take them to notice the piton is missing
4) Put a challenge in front of them that would require them to use a piton.
Generally speaking if players make checks and receive a high roll for example above 20 they expect something for it. While if it's a low roll, below 10 they expect to receive nothing. They most likely will feel ripped off if they were suspicious enough to make a check, got a roll above 20 and still were tricked. If this happens regularly it will create the perception that such checks a functionally impossible. This isn't the end of the world but it is a bit of annoyance for players who spec into checks and they will eventually stop doing so meaning you may see a shift away from experts and towards casters who match allot of the utility without checks.
In particular I think this is potentially a situation where the high roll may have actually mislead the players despite them succeeding which is not really what you want. it's pretty clear they had some skepticism to both test the bag and perform a check but clearly those two things seem to have assuaged that skepticism so that they eventually put the orb in the bag.
Personally I would have done the following
I would have revealed with the arcana check that additional magic could be hidden. For example saying that the magic supposedly on the bag could also be used to conceal other spells on it. That atleast does not remove their suspicion even if it doesn't give everything away and is more fair in my opinion.
I would have called for an investigation or arcana check when they removed the piton reflecting that this experiment was a kind of investigation. On a success they'd have determined the illusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, so I am running a campaign where a my players are transporting a mysterious orb. One PC was looking for info from an old associate (a wizard who seeks power) and the wizard gave the PC a Pouch of Protection to keep the Orb safe from scrying, detection, or other magical interference. The pouch was actually designed to transport the item back to the wizard for their own purposes. Essentially if an item is placed in the pouch it is transported to the wizards keep and replaced with a copy. The copy is tangible but mundane and disappears within 1 hour if removed from the pouch. Investigation of the copy can reveal the truth with a high DC21 Arcana check, or reasonable check to otherwise determine its false nature. If magic is used on the pouch (such as Detect Magic, etc) the pouch self destructs. So here is what happened.... The PC took the pouch back to their party, they were suspicious, so one of them tried an Arcana check to be sure the pouch was as it should be (I explained that there were symbols of protection inside, as there were to solidify the ruse) and they had a high Arcana check that beat the 21, but there was no copy yet so they just knew the symbols. One PC put a piton in the bag, closed it, activating the magic to replace with a copy, they removed the copy and felt fine with the results. They then placed the orb in the bag. My issue is I almost feel like I am being too sneaky, but the NPC who provided the bag was being very sneaky. Does this sound like a fair trick? If they check on the bag or contents they will get a chance to reveal the truth, or if the PC checks on the number of pitons in their supply they will find one missing.
I don't think you're being too sneaky personally. I think it's a cool idea off the vague glance I get from your description (there may be a number of qualifying factors that you didn't have the space to mention); trickery and deceit is a fun part of the game and this could lead into a very fun quest to get back once they realise it's a copy. As a player, I personally love this kind of trickery and spotting it, realising I got tricked and getting the chance to get back at the npc; it's no fun if I spot it all the time.
Having said all that, the one thing I would have done differently from you is re the roll to inspect the bag. Even if the wizard used actual protection symbols, there would have be to some kind of magic implanted in the bag to create the actual desired effect. I think that that could be harder to spot than discerning that the item is a copy - because it's less about sensing the magical nature of the object and more about spotting the primary magic concealed under a layer of secondary (I'm assuming that he put real protection magic on the bag here) and you didn't say the exact roll but if got a really high arcana roll and didn't pick up on the trick to the bag, as a player I think I'd feel like I was being cheated - that would my personal feeling at least.
Hope this helps
The CR for Arcana inspection was CR22 but that was for detecting the item as a fake. The bag itself does have actual protection runes, however the magic that transports it does not have a visible component. So the way I saw it was at least one member of the part has the ability to cast Detect Magic, the chance to reveal the trick would also destroy the bag, but it would prevent the party from falling for the trap. IMO an Arcana check would reveal the information about the runes and anything else the player might be able to determine through physical evidence. They did not choose the do anything other than rely on one PCs Arcana check, which revealed the runes to be for protection, and not further investigation of the bag was used. And the PC who received the bag had reason to believe the wizard who gave it may have been interested in the orbs power for personal gain. I like being tricky as a DM, sometimes I have a hard time letting my tricks happen, because as a real person I actually care about the effect of my actions...
I think it is a cool idea. However, you had a requirement of a DC 21 Arcana check to reveal the truth of a copied item (which might be a bit high since the bag replaced the item with something mundane and not magical). Yet when the character beat that number examining the bag itself you decided that the nature of the bag couldn't be defeated by an Arcana check on the bag only on the item that had been placed inside it and only after the trap had been sprung.
Presumably, casting Identify on the bag would have caused it to disappear? Identify cast as a ritual would likely have been the best way to deal with figuring out what the bag would do ... and when it disappeared the players would have an answer of sorts.
I'm not sure this is the DM being too sneaky. This would seem to me it could be the DM deciding that it is really difficult/impossible for the characters to determine the nature of the bag until after they place the magic item in the bag and trigger the plot twist you want to have happen. It is important to keep in mind that things which seem obvious from the DM perspective are often very murky from the player/character perspective.
When the characters discover that despite their high Arcana rolls and tests that the item has disappeared the players will wonder if there was anything they could have done to prevent it and the DM could say yes but it required several steps (which the party isn't actually that likely to come up with) since the only option would have been to place a magic item in the bag (one which they didn't mind losing - and players almost always mind losing magic items), pull out the replica, and then either pass a DC21 Arcana check examining the replica or cast detect magic and then examine replica thus determining that it is no longer magical - or perhaps cast Identify.
How have you been running determining the properties of other magic items in the campaign? That might help you decide the best ways for the characters to figure out what the bag might do before using it. Also, since the characters are suspicious, I wonder why they approached the wizard in the first place? I also wonder that the wizard had a ready made magic item just waiting to help him steal a magic item by having some dupes put it there for him. In addition, will this wizard be able to stand up to the righteous anger from the party when they come looking for the magic item? This is either a plot twist that the DM wants to create a BBEG or a distraction from whatever the main campaign might be as the players switch focus to recovering the item that they will easily figure out that the wizard has. That could go two ways - either the wizard is far too powerful for the party and they will have to bide their time and give up on the item or the wizard is an opponent they can defeat in which case the party is most likely to go after the item and recover it unless the DM steps in with another plot twist where either the wizard has disappeared and can't be found or the wizard escapes from the characters by teleporting out or similar - and then can't be found for a while.
So, the question becomes a bit more than the cool theft mechanism but where does the plot of the campaign go as a result of these events?
-------------------
By the way, Detect Magic isn't cast on an item, it is cast on the spell caster and enhances their senses so that they can see magic. I'm not sure how the bag would know that there is a creature that can see magic within 30' since the spell isn't cast on the bag - the spellcaster is just looking at the bag.
"For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you. If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any."
Personally, I'd have the bag work fine with Detect Magic - it would just reveal an aura of Abjuration and Conjuration magic. Conjuration happens to be the magic type associated with teleportation.
The thing that sticks out to me is the missing piton. I guess a character could go months without needing to use their pitons, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do an overall gear check, probably daily. Just part of keeping swords sharp and component pouches full, the kind of thing everyone pretty much hand waves as part of a long rest.
I’d give them a passive perception to see if they notice it’s missing, with the DC dropping every day, because sooner or later, they’ll be checking that piece of gear, just to make sure nothing’s happened to it, like water got in and it would start to rust. I think that eventually, they’d notice.
And I’d makes use of background/backstory and other RP factors. If the character is generally meticulous, they’ll notice it sooner, if they’re a slob, later.
It sounds like you gave the party no way to discover the scam, since they took every precaution and made every skill check you asked them to, and you still didn't give them the info they were looking for
If it's a railroad-y kind of campaign, that could be fine, but if it's not I would prepare for some disgruntled players when they eventually find out the bag is rigged. Because again... once they showed that they were suspicious of the bag, what exactly would they have had to do for you to tell them it wasn't what it seemed?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
With those precautions and such as high arcana roll, it imo would have been fair to at least confirm that something about the bag does indeed seem a bit off, but what exactly it is might take longer or detect magic or identify.
But there is no right or wrong to these situations. It all depends on the nature of the game. If it's a shades of grey type of game game of plotting and deceit or a straight forward black and white good vs evil game.
So basically if the players expect foul play
Finland GMT/UTC +2
To me the sneakiness isn't the issue as much as the lack of verisimilitude. To make a game seem real a DM or storyteller should consider the verisimilitude (the appearance of it being real and true) of the situations. Another way to look at this is, "would you allow the PCs to do this very same trick to NPC's without serious repercussions.
How real and true versus contrived does it feel that the following all are occurring:
To me this seems more contrived than true. Contrived experiences will feel more hollow and take away player agency. This can also lead the players to look at situations as PCs versus DM instead of it being a collaborative experience where the DM adjudicates the world.
"Find your next great gaming experience"
Discord: DmOz
I mean, they did not use Detect Magic. Identify, or even take the 1 hour short rest Identify option. One of them chose to do an Aracana check and throw a piton in, but I respect the opinion.
I was honestly shocked that they trusted it so easily. They know my style well, and I run a very "nothing is as it seems" style
I am still considering ditching the trick, because I want my players to have fun, but the thing for me is this was a one shot turned extended campaign and I wanted to keep things interesting
I don't think you need to ditch the trick - I still think potentially that a high enough arcana check might have tipped something (not necessarily given away the game but just given them a kind of hint like "there's double layers of illusion magic on this item which seems like a lot, but of course it's very well-made" or something) but on the flip side of that if a PC can figure out our tricks all the time because of a high roll then it makes it very hard for us to fool them and that for me as a player and DM is part of the fun of the game; the air of mystery -
you let them examine the bag, you had clear cut parameters for how they should go about doing it and their methods fell short of that. Putting a non-magical item in there wouldn't prove anything because even if they checked the piton, it would be as mundane as the original. Furthermore, your players know how you like to play. They could have done more, but they decided they'd done enough
So I think it's a good trick. I think at this point, you should bite the bullet, play it out and see how it goes. See how the players react when they realise the trick. Ask them how they felt about the way you ran things. If they're unhappy or feel like it was a bit unfair, then it's a learning experience for you and you apologise and move on. If they're frustrated but in that kind of dang DM that was a good trick, you got us sort of way then it's a good experience for you and you can chalk it up as a win. Either way, you'll learn something.
The only real question I think you need to answer definitively for yourself was did you mistake on your call re the high arcana roll and here are some questions you can ask yourself to help answer that question:
Did you have a DC set for discerning the additional hidden magical nature about the bag?
Did you decide in advance how the additional magic was concealed?
What level are the party - is 21+ (whatever they rolled) a super high roll for them that they wouldn't normally get or are they a high level group with a very decent arcana score(s)?
How thoroughly did they search? Did they turn it inside out, try to scry/divine the piton they put with in, did they hunt under the seams for hidden magical symbol, etc? OR Was it a more casual check over?
If you think you made a mistake - that you didn't prepare properly for them discerning the magic of the bag or that 21+ was a super high roll and in retrospect you think should have given them more for it - then make sure to let them know that they seem to be missing a piton; you're not giving the game away - if they check the bag the orb is there and if they take it out examine it then maybe they realise something, maybe they don't, but if you don't think you made a mistake then let it play out and it will learning experience for them. They'll know in the future, we need to be extra cautious. As long as you let this play out, it becomes a learning experience for you and your players (and players need to be able to forgive DM mistakes, regardless of whether this is one or not. We have so much to remember and to think about and we have to improvise on the fly a lot - we're going to make mistakes. It's an inevitable part of the game for us - and our players do to - so when we play this game we have to accept mistakes will happen).
I think this is a good trick. I don't think it's contrived personally. There are spells that could do what the wizard wanted - an adaption of Drawmiji's Instant Summons for example - and the players are never going to know every spell in the game either; they should know that - they could have still discovered the magic if they checked deeper. Apparently they thought their tests were sufficient were however ... so learning experience.
Furthermore, tricks like these make the game more fun. A good dnd campaign needs tricks, puzzles, mystery, etc (in my opinion), not just combat to be interesting. The most important question you have to ask yourself is, is this a fun trick for you and your players? If you're not sure, play it out and learn from the result. If you are, then you already know what decision you should make.
Sorry for the long post - I do have some comments about noticing the missing piton or not, but I've said a lot already so I'll finish this here for now - I do hope this was helpful. Good luck.
OK. You said in your initial post:
Did the party say, "We want to make an Arcana check to make sure the pouch is as it should be?"
Or did they say, "We want to examine the pouch to make sure it's as it should be", and you said, "Make an Arcana check."
If it's the former, then yeah, maybe they made some assumptions that will come back to bite them
If it's the latter, then I again have to ask what they would have needed to do to figure out something was up with the pouch. Because they expressed suspicion, asked you how to proceed, passed the check you told them to make... and you still gave them no hints
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Players will frequently find ways to screw over NPCs and this is the kind of thing I would expect to see by a player. So, I have no issues with it being sneaky. Its you as a DM setting up the boundaries of the next part of the campaign's journey. I do feel like the high arcana check should've revealed something along the lines of symbols you recognise as being for protection and one that seems somehow different to what you expect. Given they were cautious and threw a piton in the bag however, I don't see what else they might have done without you outright telling them.
What I would expect is for players to be a bit annoyed that their arcana check didn't hack it. I would suggest something along the lines of 21 being a limited success (something odd about the bag), 25 being a solid success (wait that one symbol has been modified in a unique way to have something to do with time...maybe one hour), and a 27 being an exceptional success (they reveal the exact purpose of the modified symbols and thus the bag.
Sadly, this is one thing D&D doesn't highlight to DMs often enough that other games bake right into the core mechanics. Tiered DC checks. Having the Failure with Consequences, Failure with no consequence, limited success, success, and success with style (similar to FATE) is a GMs best friend. I will often tier my DCs this way and will rarely tell my players what DC they're aiming for. This way if the player describes what they want to do, they roll and their roll disappoints me (because their method was fun, cool, or otherwise seems like it should have succeeded), I can adjust the DC down on the fly and the player doesn't know any different.
Having a fixed, single point DC is just plain boring and has long been the massive weakness in many D&D games.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
They suggested they wanted to check it out, to the best of my memory it was "I want to take a look at the bag, can I make an Arcana check?" I said yes and asked what they were looking at at, they said that were checking out the symbols inside the bag. I told them the symbols they saw were definitely protection symbols and wards. Then they decided the right route to go was to use the piton to test the bag. The PC who received the bag had some reasons to distrust the bag being given, and it was way too convenient which usually red flags things for these players, they are suspicious of almost anything.
I'd suggest talking to your players once it's all resolved. It may be that they feel that the successful arcana check should have been enough to tell them something was iffy. Just lay out your reasons if it does become a problem.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
1) Well I think you're entirely in the right there - letting such checks be a catch all makes things too easy. Players have a terrible habit of saying I want to investigate and assume that will tell them what they're supposed to be looking. However, the main point here is - you had a set idea for how they could discern the magic of the bag and they had the power to do those, it wasn't a hard think to think of, but they just decided not to do it => I don't think you're being sneaky
2) Well I mean the exterior had symbols in it for the protection enchantment, but were there any such symbols for concealing the additional magic - like was the transportation magic concealed by illusion to look other protection magic or was there an illusion placed over the bag so the transportation symbols weren't visible or ...
3) Well assuming everything is normal the maximum arcana bonus someone could have at that level is +11, but they don't have a necessarily intelligence or arcana based group so I'm going to assume it's actually lower so they might feel a little bit annoyed that they picked up on nothing with their very high arcana check which you said was 21+ - however, you had set ideas for how they could discern the secrets of the bag and they didn't do those and the way they described their search, there wasn't much to get from that Arcana check
4) It's on brand for me too - it's really hard to try and guess how much can they guess, am I leading them on too much, is this too easy or too tough.
Generally I personally wouldn't worry - from the sounds things, you had this properly planned out and they just weren't super thorough. They could have done more and the things they could have done were not obscure or unusual
"I made the mistake of not establishing what everyones daily routines were prior to this playing out." - We can't prepare for everything and it's not something we normally do (I don't do it in my games either). I have a few suggestions that might help:
1) How high is the passive perception of the person who owned the piton - that would give you a good base mark for how long it might take them to notice their piton is missing
2) Most of us aren't going to spend our mornings taking every thing out of our bags and checking them one by one so it wouldn't be illogical that they wouldn't notice for a while - however, what is the owner's character like? Are they fastidious? Are they paranoid? Or are they lazy and haphazard? Basically, the way they RP their character, do you think they'd be likely to notice the missing piton quickly or after a while?
Alternatively:
3) Roll a die (maybe a d100) or have them roll a die (if you think that won't raise an immediate red herring for them) and have set scores in mind for how long it will take them to notice the piton is missing
4) Put a challenge in front of them that would require them to use a piton.
Hope this helps.
Generally speaking if players make checks and receive a high roll for example above 20 they expect something for it. While if it's a low roll, below 10 they expect to receive nothing. They most likely will feel ripped off if they were suspicious enough to make a check, got a roll above 20 and still were tricked. If this happens regularly it will create the perception that such checks a functionally impossible. This isn't the end of the world but it is a bit of annoyance for players who spec into checks and they will eventually stop doing so meaning you may see a shift away from experts and towards casters who match allot of the utility without checks.
In particular I think this is potentially a situation where the high roll may have actually mislead the players despite them succeeding which is not really what you want. it's pretty clear they had some skepticism to both test the bag and perform a check but clearly those two things seem to have assuaged that skepticism so that they eventually put the orb in the bag.
Personally I would have done the following