Hello everyone, we are currently playing a heist that i homebrewed and my players are spending their time right now with prepping and coming up with a plan. Their current plan is to go into the vault to find the crate they are looking for, use a reduce spell on it to fit it in a bag of holding, leave, and then use reduce again when they want to take their loot out of the bag.
I love the plan they came up with, however it kind of foils my plans right now. The contents of the crate arent an artefact like they were told but will instead be a person (no need to get into more detail for my question).
Since they are planning on unknowingly putting this person into a bag of holding, how do i guarantee they stay alive/dont even make it into the bag of holding. From my understanding an object can only be reduced in size if its not worn by a person, like lets say a chestmail. However being covered completely by a crate isn't wearing something and would lead to the person getting crushed/suffocating in the bag of holding.
Im trying to come up with a satisfying solution to this which doesnt make my players plan fail for no apparent reason at first, but also makes it so they have to realise, in the vault, oh this is why this isnt working, shit, what do we do now.
The wording of enlarge/reduce does not specify what happens if it's cast on a container. There are a few reasonable possibilities:
It works like a creature, treating the contents as carried. In that case the occupant will be reduced (suffocation may still be a problem, though).
As #1, but the creature gets a Constitution save to negate the effect.
The container's contents do not get reduced. The container shrinks until it reaches the size of the contents, then stops.
The container's contents do not get reduced. The container either crushes its contents or breaks, depending on which is stronger. There's probably a damage cap of around 3d10, and if that isn't enough to destroy either the container or the contents, it stops (as #3).
Maybe just have the person in the crate say something from inside the crate? This reveals the big surprise early (I'm assuming), but it also makes a powerful moment to spring the surprise on them. The players then get a choice between (good) improvising a new plan on the fly vs (evil) sticking with the plan and killing the person.
Another option would be to say the crate reduces in size but the person does not, and the crate breaks. To get around any ambiguity in the spell wording, just say the person was unwilling and passed the CON saving throw.
If the adventure is already plenty challenging and you want the players' plan to work, you could say the person had some magic item that let them breathe for 24hr (arguably makes sense if whoever stuffed them into the crate wanted them to not suffocate in there)
Finally if you want to really have some fun with it, say the guy in the crate has a bag of holding and everyone gets transported to the astral plane :)
Honestly, I don’t know myself. I was going to suggest Flesh to Stone, Reduce, and than Enlarge and Stone to Flesh later, but I guess it’s a good point that if you’re trying to avoid the death of the NPC that’s already to close.
I kind of like this idea. My initial plan was to have the person inside be unconscious, since she will reveal alot of the plot and information about the bbeg of this story. And i like to put the players in a state of "ok what the **** do we do now, we wanted an artefact and money but now we've got this young girl here" before i reveal whats going on. But i think an "ill explain later, get me out of here" would also work.
Some extra information about the npc that i ddint originally mention is that, ironically she actually is the artefact. Where her heart used to be, now is a a hole which goes into her chest and grows white perfect diamonds. Its the plot twist in the plot twist basically haha. Something else i thought of was to say that since she is bound to the artefact and if its removed she would die, maybe she counts as an item for the bag of holding. As in, she does not in fact need air to survive because, she doesnt have a heart, therefore no circulation, therefore she doesnt need any oxygen. This way i could let me players treat her like an item while heisting, even though she is a full fledged npc.
Any thoughts on this idea? Does it make no sense/will i not have my players go "Akchually, a person cant be in a bag of holding for that long🤓"
The container will shrink. The content won't. The spell targets one object orone creature. Two things could happen: Container pops open, if not nailed shut, spilling the content, or the container shinks as far as the content allows it without crushing it - i derive this from the fact, that a creature who enlarges will ony grow as far as there is space to, saving it from being stuck or being crushed by the spell.
But why wouldn't the players open the crate to steal the McGuffin? No one will deal with moving around a whole crate on a heist, if there's only one thingamajig in it, and with a bag of holding even if there are a bunch, they would probably just shovel them in their bag. An other good reason is, if the crate is missing, someone will notice, so leaving the crate is better, until someone looks inside.
As for your NPC. There is magic that put a creature into complete stasis in terms of needing no food, water or air. NPC could be subject to such an effect, relieving the players of that problem. (Yes it creates the new problem of waking that person, but it could be as easy as removing a ring, brewing a potion from "wakeherup root", or just a boring dispel magic.)
As for your NPC. There is magic that put a creature into complete stasis in terms of needing no food, water or air. NPC could be subject to such an effect, relieving the players of that problem. (Yes it creates the new problem of waking that person, but it could be as easy as removing a ring, brewing a potion from "wakeherup root", or just a boring dispel magic.)
How long is the creature expected to be in the crate? It would be easy to design a crate which is not air tight (e.g have the crate covered in cloth with an investigation check revealing holes under the cloth), a human can go 3 days wthout water and about 6 weeks without food. I agree that Reduce / Enlarge only works for one object, I would go with the spell either fizzles or cant be cast as it is impossible to target the crate without the creature inside. but having the crate break / open.
It is rather extreme but the magic to put a create in complete statis is imprisonment (it looks like you would go with slumber) the quest giver will no the condition to end the spell (or you can provide a way for the party to find out).
It is rather extreme but the magic to put a create in complete statis is imprisonment (it looks like you would go with slumber) the quest giver will no the condition to end the spell (or you can provide a way for the party to find out).
The quest giver knowing the condition is also a very nice solution. I explicitly just didn't mention imprisonment, as it's 9th level magic, and the PCs most likely won't be on that powerscale - and if the adversary is... guesstimated minimal chance of survival.
It's just my take in a plot like this to go with "unknown source of effect". It's still scary enough that the adversary has access to something like that without the ability to also cast "Rocks fall, everyone dies".
All the greatest heist movies have a moment where at a pivotal point, part of the plan is revealed not to be able to work and the thrives have to improvise a solution and still get out alive. I say their plan is great, but working with incomplete information, it's acceptable for it not to work how they thought it would.
I personally would have the container shrink to the point where it shatters itself around it's un-shrunk contents, leaving the npc unhurt or lightly wounded (they would win out over the box since the Reduce side of the spell also has a weakening effect on the target, so the box would break before the npc does), and suddenly you have the players all standing in the vault with this unconscious person and they have to figure out a new way out.
I think that would work best from a storytelling perspective AND a fun gameplay perspective.
All the greatest heist movies have a moment where at a pivotal point, part of the plan is revealed not to be able to work and the thrives have to improvise a solution and still get out alive. I say their plan is great, but working with incomplete information, it's acceptable for it not to work how they thought it would.
I personally would have the container shrink to the point where it shatters itself around it's un-shrunk contents, leaving the npc unhurt or lightly wounded (they would win out over the box since the Reduce side of the spell also has a weakening effect on the target, so the box would break before the npc does), and suddenly you have the players all standing in the vault with this unconscious person and they have to figure out a new way out.
I think that would work best from a storytelling perspective AND a fun gameplay perspective.
That works, my suggestion where the spell does nothing results in the party either opening the crate (and being in the same situation as with the crate breaking) or trying to get away with an unreduced crate which would also require the party to think on their feet.
Hello everyone, we are currently playing a heist that i homebrewed and my players are spending their time right now with prepping and coming up with a plan. Their current plan is to go into the vault to find the crate they are looking for, use a reduce spell on it to fit it in a bag of holding, leave, and then use reduce again when they want to take their loot out of the bag.
I love the plan they came up with, however it kind of foils my plans right now. The contents of the crate arent an artefact like they were told but will instead be a person (no need to get into more detail for my question).
Since they are planning on unknowingly putting this person into a bag of holding, how do i guarantee they stay alive/dont even make it into the bag of holding. From my understanding an object can only be reduced in size if its not worn by a person, like lets say a chestmail. However being covered completely by a crate isn't wearing something and would lead to the person getting crushed/suffocating in the bag of holding.
Im trying to come up with a satisfying solution to this which doesnt make my players plan fail for no apparent reason at first, but also makes it so they have to realise, in the vault, oh this is why this isnt working, shit, what do we do now.
My question is ... how will the party NOT know that the contents of the crate are alive?
Presumably, the crate has holes for air and also contains food and water for the creature inside, otherwise the creature is likely already dead.
If the crate has no air holes then it must be able to produce a livable environment inside like a Leomund's tiny hut.
So the situation then resolves really easily ... Party arrives in the vault to take the crate.
1) They immediately notice that the crate has holes. This would likely be easy to notice especially if anyone in the party has a moderately high passive perception (e.g. 15). DM narrates it, party realizes that the crate they want contains a living creature, party realizes the bag of holding plan won't work and has to think fast to come up with a plan B.
2) The crate does not have holes - it is a self-contained environment. Two options.
A) The reduce spell shrinks the crate and its contents. This works particularly well if the lid of the crate contains a portal to a demiplane where the creature is held. Up to the DM to decide if it interacts negatively with the bag of holding but since it isn't one of the specific items listed the DM can easily rule that it functions differently. The party puts the crate in the bag of holding but since life support is self contained, the limited air in the bag isn't a factor. Plan goes as intended.
B) The reduce spell only shrinks the crate and not its contents. This option should never happen because the CHARACTER would already know what would happen when you cast reduce on a container with contents - it either reduces everything or not. This is not a fact that would get found out when the characters try it - the character learns the spell, they train in it, they learn what it can do and what it can't. If the DM decides to let the players just try it without telling them how it works in advance then the DM is just playing "Gotcha!" with the players. Basic knowledge about the functioning of spells is something that both the characters (and DM) should already know. Whether reduce works on a container and its contents is probably one of the first things a character would learn with learning the spell ... so it doesn't make any sense to surprise them with how it works later.
In this case, the DM would tell the players during their planning whether reduce can reduce a container and its contents or not in their game world since it is something the character who can cast this spell would already know even if the players do not. Don't let the players plan something that the DM already knows won't work if the knowledge is something the characters should already know as well.
----
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone, we are currently playing a heist that i homebrewed and my players are spending their time right now with prepping and coming up with a plan. Their current plan is to go into the vault to find the crate they are looking for, use a reduce spell on it to fit it in a bag of holding, leave, and then use reduce again when they want to take their loot out of the bag.
I love the plan they came up with, however it kind of foils my plans right now. The contents of the crate arent an artefact like they were told but will instead be a person (no need to get into more detail for my question).
Since they are planning on unknowingly putting this person into a bag of holding, how do i guarantee they stay alive/dont even make it into the bag of holding. From my understanding an object can only be reduced in size if its not worn by a person, like lets say a chestmail. However being covered completely by a crate isn't wearing something and would lead to the person getting crushed/suffocating in the bag of holding.
Im trying to come up with a satisfying solution to this which doesnt make my players plan fail for no apparent reason at first, but also makes it so they have to realise, in the vault, oh this is why this isnt working, shit, what do we do now.
The wording of enlarge/reduce does not specify what happens if it's cast on a container. There are a few reasonable possibilities:
Maybe just have the person in the crate say something from inside the crate? This reveals the big surprise early (I'm assuming), but it also makes a powerful moment to spring the surprise on them. The players then get a choice between (good) improvising a new plan on the fly vs (evil) sticking with the plan and killing the person.
Another option would be to say the crate reduces in size but the person does not, and the crate breaks. To get around any ambiguity in the spell wording, just say the person was unwilling and passed the CON saving throw.
If the adventure is already plenty challenging and you want the players' plan to work, you could say the person had some magic item that let them breathe for 24hr (arguably makes sense if whoever stuffed them into the crate wanted them to not suffocate in there)
Finally if you want to really have some fun with it, say the guy in the crate has a bag of holding and everyone gets transported to the astral plane :)
Honestly, I don’t know myself. I was going to suggest Flesh to Stone, Reduce, and than Enlarge and Stone to Flesh later, but I guess it’s a good point that if you’re trying to avoid the death of the NPC that’s already to close.
I kind of like this idea. My initial plan was to have the person inside be unconscious, since she will reveal alot of the plot and information about the bbeg of this story. And i like to put the players in a state of "ok what the **** do we do now, we wanted an artefact and money but now we've got this young girl here" before i reveal whats going on. But i think an "ill explain later, get me out of here" would also work.
Some extra information about the npc that i ddint originally mention is that, ironically she actually is the artefact. Where her heart used to be, now is a a hole which goes into her chest and grows white perfect diamonds. Its the plot twist in the plot twist basically haha. Something else i thought of was to say that since she is bound to the artefact and if its removed she would die, maybe she counts as an item for the bag of holding. As in, she does not in fact need air to survive because, she doesnt have a heart, therefore no circulation, therefore she doesnt need any oxygen. This way i could let me players treat her like an item while heisting, even though she is a full fledged npc.
Any thoughts on this idea? Does it make no sense/will i not have my players go "Akchually, a person cant be in a bag of holding for that long🤓"
The container will shrink. The content won't. The spell targets one object or one creature. Two things could happen: Container pops open, if not nailed shut, spilling the content, or the container shinks as far as the content allows it without crushing it - i derive this from the fact, that a creature who enlarges will ony grow as far as there is space to, saving it from being stuck or being crushed by the spell.
But why wouldn't the players open the crate to steal the McGuffin? No one will deal with moving around a whole crate on a heist, if there's only one thingamajig in it, and with a bag of holding even if there are a bunch, they would probably just shovel them in their bag. An other good reason is, if the crate is missing, someone will notice, so leaving the crate is better, until someone looks inside.
As for your NPC. There is magic that put a creature into complete stasis in terms of needing no food, water or air. NPC could be subject to such an effect, relieving the players of that problem. (Yes it creates the new problem of waking that person, but it could be as easy as removing a ring, brewing a potion from "wakeherup root", or just a boring dispel magic.)
How long is the creature expected to be in the crate? It would be easy to design a crate which is not air tight (e.g have the crate covered in cloth with an investigation check revealing holes under the cloth), a human can go 3 days wthout water and about 6 weeks without food. I agree that Reduce / Enlarge only works for one object, I would go with the spell either fizzles or cant be cast as it is impossible to target the crate without the creature inside. but having the crate break / open.
It is rather extreme but the magic to put a create in complete statis is imprisonment (it looks like you would go with slumber) the quest giver will no the condition to end the spell (or you can provide a way for the party to find out).
The quest giver knowing the condition is also a very nice solution. I explicitly just didn't mention imprisonment, as it's 9th level magic, and the PCs most likely won't be on that powerscale - and if the adversary is... guesstimated minimal chance of survival.
It's just my take in a plot like this to go with "unknown source of effect". It's still scary enough that the adversary has access to something like that without the ability to also cast "Rocks fall, everyone dies".
"No plan survives contact with the enemy."
All the greatest heist movies have a moment where at a pivotal point, part of the plan is revealed not to be able to work and the thrives have to improvise a solution and still get out alive. I say their plan is great, but working with incomplete information, it's acceptable for it not to work how they thought it would.
I personally would have the container shrink to the point where it shatters itself around it's un-shrunk contents, leaving the npc unhurt or lightly wounded (they would win out over the box since the Reduce side of the spell also has a weakening effect on the target, so the box would break before the npc does), and suddenly you have the players all standing in the vault with this unconscious person and they have to figure out a new way out.
I think that would work best from a storytelling perspective AND a fun gameplay perspective.
That works, my suggestion where the spell does nothing results in the party either opening the crate (and being in the same situation as with the crate breaking) or trying to get away with an unreduced crate which would also require the party to think on their feet.
My question is ... how will the party NOT know that the contents of the crate are alive?
Presumably, the crate has holes for air and also contains food and water for the creature inside, otherwise the creature is likely already dead.
If the crate has no air holes then it must be able to produce a livable environment inside like a Leomund's tiny hut.
So the situation then resolves really easily ... Party arrives in the vault to take the crate.
1) They immediately notice that the crate has holes. This would likely be easy to notice especially if anyone in the party has a moderately high passive perception (e.g. 15). DM narrates it, party realizes that the crate they want contains a living creature, party realizes the bag of holding plan won't work and has to think fast to come up with a plan B.
2) The crate does not have holes - it is a self-contained environment. Two options.
A) The reduce spell shrinks the crate and its contents. This works particularly well if the lid of the crate contains a portal to a demiplane where the creature is held. Up to the DM to decide if it interacts negatively with the bag of holding but since it isn't one of the specific items listed the DM can easily rule that it functions differently. The party puts the crate in the bag of holding but since life support is self contained, the limited air in the bag isn't a factor. Plan goes as intended.
B) The reduce spell only shrinks the crate and not its contents. This option should never happen because the CHARACTER would already know what would happen when you cast reduce on a container with contents - it either reduces everything or not. This is not a fact that would get found out when the characters try it - the character learns the spell, they train in it, they learn what it can do and what it can't. If the DM decides to let the players just try it without telling them how it works in advance then the DM is just playing "Gotcha!" with the players. Basic knowledge about the functioning of spells is something that both the characters (and DM) should already know. Whether reduce works on a container and its contents is probably one of the first things a character would learn with learning the spell ... so it doesn't make any sense to surprise them with how it works later.
In this case, the DM would tell the players during their planning whether reduce can reduce a container and its contents or not in their game world since it is something the character who can cast this spell would already know even if the players do not. Don't let the players plan something that the DM already knows won't work if the knowledge is something the characters should already know as well.
----