@Quint, I'm sure there won't be too much trouble accommodating those necessary elements. Let me know when you get that back story stuff updated; I look forward to reading it! :)
I have most of the basic points figured out, including a reason for Quint using the mongolian-style draw and release instead of the european/mediterranean style that is standard in medieval fantasy settings.
Though I don't have it listed in his equipment, he really should be using a thumb ring for this draw style (I've been researching a strange set of topics for the purposes of this story). At the moment, I'm thinking he has a strip of extra leather from his armor (I'll have to write something about how he got that, too) wrapped around his thumb, or perhaps the armor included gloves and he cut a notch inside the thumb to serve that purpose. Once he has some gold from this quest, maybe he'll spend a little of it on a simple iron ring that will work better, or maybe this will be part of an upgrade from leather armor to studded leather.
Good day all. The current situation, with Shenkt and the darkness, had me doing quite a bit of thinking yesterday. Not because it was adjudicated incorrectly; as far as I can tell, I've applied the rules as written and intended. Darkness blocks vision, conferring the blinded condition. The game handles the reality of a chance to not hit in those conditions by conferring disadvantage. The rules also state that having advantage and disadvantage at the same time, means just roll regularly. So, I got it right.
That's not the problem. The problem is, and I know I'm disagreeing with my own self here (seeking realism over ease of use), the realism of that situation. This same thing came up in the table top game that I'm running and we all agreed to an adjustment to the rules that adopts, for me anyway, just a titch more realism to the situation. I'd like everyone's opinion on moving forward with this slight adjustment to the rules. As with all things, this is our game, not mine, so unless we reach a consensus, we won't change anything.
I'm going to spoiler this because it's going to end up being long.
First off, the RAW needs to be established. In order to do that, we need to collect rules from a lot of different places. First, Vision and Light from PHB 183, “A heavily obscured area such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage, blocks vision entirely." Prior to that, in lightly obscured, the rules say that a character has disadvantage on any Perception checks that rely on sight. The implication there being, obviously, if a character is trying to locate something in an area that obscures vision, they are going to have a difficult time doing that. There is no such indication under heavily obscured, and I’m going to say that’s because the developers thought it pretty obvious that if you can’t see something, you can’t target it. Ergo, you’re swinging blindly… Which the original rules covered by actually saying a creature in a heavily obscured area suffers from the blinded condition. That was changed by errata to say: “A heavily obscured area doesn’t blind you, but you are effectively blinded when you try to see something obscured by it.” Which means we need to know what the blinded condition does: “A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.” It’s also important, I think, to look at the rules that govern unseen attackers. These rules say: “Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness. When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the GM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly. When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden–both unseen and unheard–when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.” And those rules, for me, provide the springboard for adjudication that has more realism. The key quote being this: “If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss.” This sentence implies that a character that is attacking a creature they can’t see is targeting a square. Now, obviously, in a game with a grid and miniatures, the player is going to know exactly what square to target. They see the miniature on the grid. The character however, especially if they were just plunged into darkness (which can be quite disorienting, I know, I’ve been in a house, at night, when the power went out), does not know that. Therefore we have to establish some sort of in-game mechanical rules to how they are going to locate a creature they can’t see, even if it is right next to them. The way the game handles that is with Perception checks. I think it perfectly reasonable for a character to roll a Perception check (with disadvantage because they are actually in a situation worse than lightly obscured), to locate their target (via sound or other environmental factors) before they attack. In those situations, I would either just assign a DC to the check based on current parameters, or, perhaps, if the enemy is intelligent, have them make a reaction stealth check to set the DC. Ergo, things would just be taken on a case by case basis, with the player and myself agreeing on what is reasonable. Success on the Perception check means the player has heard enough to be targeting the correct square, and then attacks with disadvantage (unless something would be providing advantage, and then they just roll normally). That covers the attacking in darkness bit of things, but there’s one more element to look at.
Moving…
Like I said before, I’ve been in a house, at night, where the power went out. In addition to being disorienting it is extremely difficult to maneuver in. In that situation, which happened to be an overcast night, so no light from moon or stars, I stumbled around with hands reaching out and swirling around in big circles, just trying to locate the cabinet and drawer that held a flashlight. Realistically a character that is suddenly plunged into darkness (or magical darkness for those with darkvision) is not going to be able to maneuver normally. They just aren’t. My table top group and I came up with applying a modified version of the Restrained condition in those situations. The restrained condition as is says: “A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage. The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws.” That seems very reasonable for a creature that suddenly can’t see a darned thing. However, as I mentioned before, I did move around in the darkness, albeit very slowly. So the modifications to that condition I’d make are these. Your speed is dropped to 10’. There are situations where the character could overcome that though. If for example the character was suddenly immersed in opaque fog, but had had a good look at the area before the fog was conjured, they’d have a chance to move about normally. In those situations, I might just have the character roll a Dexterity or Acrobatics check to move normally with a DC determined by the situation. Or, if the darkness or fog was dropped while the character was in familiar territory, I might have them roll an Intelligence, or History check to move normally. The idea there being they know the environment well enough that even though their vision is obscured they can move about normally.
I know that’s a lot of stuff, so I want to just put together the bare bones mechanics to make it easier to process.
A character whose vision is blocked, by whatever means, receives the blinded condition and a modified version of the restrained condition wherein their movement is dropped to 10’ instead of 0’, with situational checks to possibly move at normal speed. To attack any creature within the field of blocked vision, a character must succeed on a Perception check rolled with disadvantage (DC set by situational elements) to locate the target first. If they do not succeed on that check, they cannot target the enemy. If they succeed on the check, they attack with disadvantage.
As I said earlier, this is our game, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts, criticism, addendums, or counterarguments. If my houserule above is suitable to you, you need only say so.
As always thanks for participating in this game, I’m having all kinds of fun. Even thinking about rules like this is fun for me.
Cheers,
MW
I only have one comment on the proposed mechanic. Making the perception check should NOT be with disadvantage, in my opinion. The reasoning behind this stems from the notion that when you are rolling perception, the PC is using more than just their sense of sight. Smell, hearing, and feel are also part of the check. Therefore, when the lights,go out, and something was right in front of us, chances are some of those other senses will pick up the locale. The following attack at disadvantage takes into account the chance that target can move slightly from its last known spot.
Makes sense. I'd be inclined to say if the target is still within 5' of the character targeting it, no disadvantage is necessary, anything beyond 5', though, disadvantage seems rather reasonable.
I can agree with that.
For the movement part, I would say that the rules and any modifications should be based on the difficult terrain rules. If you can't see where you're going, that's definitely difficult terrain. You could maybe even say it's doubly difficult terrain. You can only move normally at 1/4 speed. You can attempt to move at half speed, but if you do, you have to succeed at an acrobatics check (for which you may optionally use your intelligence modifier in place of your dexterity modifier to remember the terrain if you got a good look before the lights went out). If you fail, you fall. You could maybe even say that moving at full speed is possible, but you have to make the same check with disadvantage. After all, there is nothing actually preventing you from attempting to move at a faster speed, it's just really difficult to avoid tripping or running into something, and you need to slow way down to be confident of not falling.
For locating a target you can't see, the target should be making a stealth check vs. your passive perception. If you are effectively blinded, that check is made with advantage. The passive perception system is designed to avoid opposed check, and pathfinder second edition is taking this even further, giving all abilities a DC for an opposed check to overcome.
Of course, if you saw the target before the lights went out and it doesn't move, it's pretty easy to target its square, so you can attack with disadvantage.
One thing that doesn't make sense to me is what happens if neither creature can see. If you can't see, attacks against you normally have advantage. If you can't see, you have disadvantage. If neither creature can see, these cancel out, so as long as nobody moves, two creatures who can't see can continue to duke it out in the dark as if they could both see. I don't know exactly what the solution should be, but it might involve a "suber-advantage" and "super-disadvantage" mechanic. In these cases, you roll three dice and either take the highest or lowest. Super-disadvantage plus advantage would equal regular disadvantage. You could also say that super-disadvantage still only makes you roll two dice, but you need two sources of advantage to cancel it out instead of just one.
Btw, speaking of disadvantage, if you haven't taken a close look at the "lucky" feat, you really should. "Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw." This means that if you have disadvantage on a roll, you roll 3 dice, and you can choose to use the higher of the original two, essentially turning disadvantage into super-advantage. This could lead to situations where you intentionally close your eyes (temporarily blinding yourself in get disadvantage) when you make an attack, letting your luck take over, which is actually kind of cool (though allowing someone to do it 3 times a day might be excessive).
If they aren't hiding, you can't hear them, BUT it's really easy to hide from something that can't see you. If you're speaking, obviously you're not trying not to be heard, but being unseen certainly allows you to make a hide check. For non-rogues, this requires their action, which I guess makes sense, as creatures that are not practiced in moving about silently require some concentration to do so. Maybe in this case, you could allow them to make a stealth check with disadvantage as a bonus action?
Quint, the idea about difficult terrain is pure gold. I'm upset I didn't think of it. I'd like to change the rule based on that and based on Shenkt's point about not having disadvantage to locate something that is within 5'.
@Gomdebo, I hear you. I've seen a lot of different discussions about what unseen and unheard really means. I've also seen a lot of different discussions on various boards where people have come up with houserules for hiding. For whatever reason, it seems like stealth is one of those things that games just aren't great at mimicking well. One point I want to make is that under Unseen Attackers it also says: "lf you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." That language makes it seem like, even if you are in the dark, or fog, or whatever, your attack (and it does not specify melee attack, so it could be ranged, does that mean just the snap of a bowstring gives away location?) immediately makes those capable of hearing it aware of your location. In a situation like that, I'd have no problem saying that PCs can successfully target that square, and just allow disadvantage to cover the miss chance. Also, I italicized a line in the houserule about situational checks allowed to overcome the movement penalty. I actually called out Acrobatics as being one of the possible checks to overcome the hampered movement in my original rant. So I'm in total agreement about that. Somebody that is extremely dexterous/agile will be able to make those adjustments to their body as their moving, even in the dark.
@Quint, I'd looked at the Lucky Feat before, but never thought about it in terms of an additional d20 on top of advantage, or disadvantage. I might argue with you about the semantics there of being able to pick the best result in a disadvantageous situation, but I do see that the language seems to indicate that's the intention.
I just though of something else. 5e allows you to move, attack, and then move again. So a creature that can see you, but that you can't see, could move, attack, and then move again, causing you to have to make that Perception check to locate their new position. Of course, a smart player in that situation would just use their action to ready an action to attack any enemy that gives away its location. ;)
Unless all bets are off once they attack?
Mended, I have no issues with going either way on this 'blinded' thing. I'll go with the majority.
EDIT: The one thing would be depending on how familiar the 'blinded' person is with their environment. I move around my house in the dark with minimal trouble (or none) all the time. While moving around in your house in the dark I would obviously have trouble.
What I do have an issue with - and I realize this is technically my fault since it is my responsibility to know my own characters abilities, but at the same time I made it very clear that I'm brand new at 5E DnD - But I have been doing my attacks wrong this entire time and no one bothered to point it out to me? I have always thought of the gaming community as people that are always willing to help a newbie learn things, but I am very disappointed that it has taken this long for anyone to point this out to me. I shall endeavor to learn my character & her abilities better.
@Gom, I just want to make sure I'm reading you right. Are you saying that as a DM you'd allow PCs that can't see in the dark to still target the square of an enemy without any Perception roll, unless the enemy actually used the Hide action? Cause that idea has a lot of merit by the RAW, and the gamist in me says, "yeah that's easier and more fun, go for it." Meanwhile the realist in me says, "that makes zero sense." I guess, were there a lot of voices in the group advocating that, I suppose I could probably be talked into it, with situational adjustments as necessary.
As for the readied action, you can ready an action to attack, so I know a PC wouldn't be able to make use of all their actions, but they could prevent the sneak up stab, and sneak away again course of enemy actions by readying that attack.
@Luna, I have to admit, sadly, I completely forgot about that part of the Monk rules until Gomdebo pointed it out. Also, you've actually been one of the characters doing consistent damage, so I didn't really feel like anything was out of whack. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but, as a player myself, I find it hard to keep track of all my character's abilities, let alone checking up to make sure other people are running their characters correctly. Rather than purposefully malicious, I think you're just dealing with a bunch of people that were blissfully ignorant. As to the critical hits, you just roll the dice twice, and add the relevant ability modifier once. So, you did it right. :)
Not sure how it makes zero "realist" sense...can you close your eyes and point with your finger at someone who is talking?
Yeah, do you find giant hungry worms talking a lot in the middle of a battle? My frame of reference is my imagination of a battle, where once an enemy drops some darkness, or a fog cloud, they aren't yelling "Marco Polo" out to each other, but rather using the heavy obscurement to provide the advantage they need to win the battle. To drop such an obscuring thing, and then, for all intents and purposes, call out their position seems both dumb and unrealistic. You know?
I hear your interpretation of the RAW, I do. I'm still inching my way toward that being the RAI... Like I said, if I get a lot of voices backing you up, I can certainly see myself running it like that just for ease of use, even if it splits my realism nerves. ;)
I agree that Quint's suggestion about difficult terrain is gold.
Overall I think I am with Gom on this one. At first glance this seems like a health house rule. I would be fine with it. But I think its of how will this rule interact with others in different situations that makes me wonder. I also think that as Gom pointed out there are other options to sensing an enemy beyond them talking. Like the stickiness of the worms on stone, laboured breathing, and so on.
Here's my understanding of RAW:
Targeting the square where you last saw something should not require a check. Not unless some effect is actively disorienting you, in which case it should have its own rules (as with the Confusion spell). There are no automatic perception checks that oppose a stealth check in 5e. That's what passive perception is for. If you want to actively search for something that you failed to passively perceive, that is what the search action is for, and as the name implies, it is an action (so you can't, for example, search and attack in the same round, unless you have an ability that allows you to do one of those things as a bonus action).
As for players using out-of-character knowledge to target an enemy's square and what a DM should do to prevent it, that depends on the group. Ideally, players would be able to separate in-character knowledge from out-of-character knowledge, but some DMs do not trust their players to do so, and some players cannot be trusted to do so. If the DM's goal is to build suspense, or to intentionally mislead the player for dramatic effect, it may make sense to remove a hidden character from the board, or even place that character's token in the place where the PCs believe that character is rather than where he actually is.
@Luna: I can't speak for the others, but I'm new to 5e. I have a pretty good idea how my own class operates (at least up through level 3) but I haven't even read the entry for yours yet, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one. Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I want to clarify something here. I never said (or even thought!) the word 'malice' or any synonym of it nor anything even remotely similar to it in my post. I MOST DEFINITELY did not mean to imply that anyone not telling me about my attacks being 'incomplete' was being done in malice or anything like that! If anybody thought so, PLEASE FORGIVE ME!
All I meant was that I was surprised that no one had noticed it or pointed it out sooner. Nothing more, nothing less.
@Quint, this is going to make me sound really incompetent, but your most recent explanation, combined with Gomdebo's nudging help to more fully understand the RAW, once again (in keeping with all of D&D 5e) operating for ease of use over realism, basically clicked a light bulb in my head of how things are supposed to operate. It was really like one of those "aha" moments. It's all about action economy. The addition of heavily obscured territory creates situations where the normal actions of combat might be replaced by hiding and searching (a bit of hide and seek :P). This gives some characters (like the rogue) a time to shine because they can hide as a bonus action, allowing them possibly to sneak up and layeth the smack downeth.
Key line "targeting the square where you last saw something." Of course. The game handles the obscuring thing by giving disadvantage, easy to use, and keeps the game moving quickly. Should an enemy then desire to use the obscuring thing to hide, they have to use their action (unless they're a rogue) to hide, thereby using their action to make that obscuring thing work to their advantage.
I've no trouble operating things just like that, which, as I've now been taught, is the RAW. Only problem I still have with that then is the moving in the field of a heavily obscured area. I just can't get over the fact that the RAW applies no penalty to moving around in an area where the character can literally not see their own hand in front of their face...? Should we still move forward with a movement penalty, but just make it regular difficult terrain? This creates, again, the action economy problem, which seems to be how the developers want to address those less than exemplary combat situations... What do you all think?
@Luna, sorry, I didn't mean to attribute assumption of malice where there wasn't any. Text is so hard to read emotional intention. We're all good here. Everyone still having fun? Everyone still enjoying their characters? Let's press forward!
Speaking of which, I have a bit of work to do this morning, but once that's finished, if Boddynuck hasn't posted, I'll be botting him to move things along. :)
Indeed...having a blast! Move forward, by all means!
I didn't mean for the quote to be taken quite so literally. In this case, it might have been more appropriate to paraphrase it to something more like "Never attribute to apathy that which is adequately explained by ignorance."
@Boddynuck, I'm very sorry to hear that you were in the hospital, whether there for your own health or visiting others. Do not worry about us. If I need to bot you, I will. If I can offer any sort of help, insomuch as any one can offer over the "airwaves," let me know. Take care of yourself!
@Mended - Thanks. Appreciated.
As to blindness/darkness I'll go along with the majority but I AM concerned about making what is already a very bad situation still worse. The move - attack - move sequence is very troubling.
It may be realistic for the following to happen but I'm not sure that it is FUN
GM: Suddenly out of the darkness somebody comes in, swings at you, hits for 12 points and then you think they ran away.
Player: Perception roll. Fails
GM : Suddenly out of the darkness somebody comes in, swings at you, hits for 12 points and then you think they ran away. Well, you WOULD think that except, of course, for the fact that 12 points knocked you unconscious.
I don't know how common monsters with darkvision are in D&D5th but, in Pathfinder, the almost true running joke is "Oh, they're not human? Then OF COURSE they have darkvision". Darkvision combined with some means of creating darkness is incredibly common in Pathfinder.
Boddy, don't forget you would get an Attack of Opportunity in that situation unless the monster had some kind of special ability.
I would have thought not in darkness. But, in my case, it isn't like attacks of opportunity are going to matter anyway :-)
My apologies folks. I have been out of commission the last day & a half or so. Suffice it to say that early Wednesday morning I got violently ill and amongst other issues I had a fever of 100.5. The only cause I can think of is a Big Mac from Mcd's since that was the only thing I ate that night. In a period of about 4 hrs I drank over 2 quarts of water! I still feel like a truck ran over me, and still have no appetite, but at least the fever & other effects has stopped. I did NOT make it to my Wednesday night tabletop group. I'll catch up here asap. BUT seriously? 31 gameposts besides the 7 in Discussion? Yowzers! That's going to take me a bit!
Similar situation to Bellaluna, only with more fever and bone-rattling chills and less vomiting.
Get better. Games are games, health affects everything. We'll be here waiting for your character to "catch up."
Take care of yourselves.
While I appreciate that it can be difficult to get caught up with a game that moves as quickly as this one has over the past few days, I do not want to limit posters to a set number of posts. These bumps in the proverbial road are going to happen, and if it takes people some time to catch up and adjust, that's just part of the nature of the beast. Hopefully everyone that has been out ill will have a chance to read and process over the weekend, and we can start off back on track next week. Otherwise, if people feel that the game is moving too quickly for their real life ability to keep up with, there is always the option to recuse oneself from the game. Not that I want people to leave, but I have had to leave games that I couldn't keep up with, or that couldn't keep up with me, before. It happens. I was very open during recruitment that I was looking for frequent posts. I think I even said "daily if possible" somewhere back there.
Cheers to all!
MW
Boddy, don't forget you would get an Attack of Opportunity in that situation unless the monster had some kind of special ability.I would have thought not in darkness. But, in my case, it isn't like attacks of opportunity are going to matter anyway :-)
Actually Boddynuck, the War Caster feat allows you to target a creature that provokes an opportunity attack with a spell. In addition to providing the character with some other great benefits. The spell has to have a casting time of no greater than one action and only target one creature (so no reaction fireballs... :P), but still, the ability to do so does exist within the rules. :)
I did say semi-serious :-).
I haven't given the tiniest thought to feats yet, I admit :-)
I did say semi-serious :-).
I haven't given the tiniest thought to feats yet, I admit :-)
:-D No worries. I think the War Caster feat is more geared toward clerics, because it also provides the ability to cast spells while wielding weapons (or weapon and shield) in both hands. Of course, it also provides advantage on all Constitution saves made to keep concentration. If it did no other thing, to me, that benefit alone makes the feat worth it. :) Just my opinion though.
I have played in a lot of games on the forums. Heavy posting is honestly a blessing. It might get overwhelming but of the problems to have in a PBP it is the best.
Sorry, I've been putting together a new pbp game for a system I'm still learning, so I've been a bit....distracted.
I'll get a post up either tonight or this weekend and do my best to be ready going forward from there.
Call me thick, but if there's some significant pattern we're supposed to see in the dates, I'm not seeing it. Here are the dates shown:
Durragaim 2: Day 1 of the journal. "He" and "his agent" mentioned in past tense, and it implies that neither has been seen in the last week.
Durragaim 11: Day 10. Just complaining about isolation and living conditions.
Durragaim 13: Day 12. Anomaly first appears.
Durragaim 15: Day 14. First mention of Grugiz, who brought supplies and may be a goblin.
JormunRek 1: Day 24. Anomaly comes back after apparently not appearing for 12 days. First psychic bonding between two worms.
JormunRek 9: Day 32. Anomaly appears for third time, after 8 days.
JormunRek 17: Day 40. "He" visits for the first time and winds the chronometer. 5 worms connected.
Haethberict 15: Day 64. Anomaly appearing regularly by this point, 14 worms bonded.
Haethberict 19: Day 68. Decision to connect the anomaly to a worm.
Haethberict 22: Day 71. Anomaly successfully connected to a worm.
Haethberict 23: Day 72. Worm triples in size, Grugiz drops off supplies, but doesn't stay to talk (sounds like other visits were not mentioned).
Haethberiect 24: Day 73. Worm sick.
Haethberict 25: Day 74. Worm now hand-sized. "He" is mentioned, but it sounds like past-tense, not like he visited.
Laureoth 1: Day 76. "He" mentioned again, future tense this time. Still not present.
The rest of Laureoth passes without entry, the author presumably dead. We are now on day 100.
So, "he" is only mentioned visiting once, about half way through the journal. The chronometer probably needs winding now. If "he" was visiting on any type of schedule, "he" probably already found the body. Grugiz is mentioned visiting twice, 58 days apart, but additional visits in between are implied. Prime factorization of 58 is 2 x 29, so unless these visits are every 29 days, these visits are probably not on a regular schedule. If Grugiz DOES visit every 29 days, his next visit will be tomorrow, but if they are any more frequent, he also will have already found the body.
Does the empire's mage order have a tower?
@Quint, seeing my in-game post, I think you'll see that your "he already found the body," is exactly what I was getting at. There's no pattern to the dates. But those intellectuals among the group, of which I count Quint as one, would be almost 100% certain that Arthugh was found and left, WITH his research. That could mean a couple things: one, Arthugh's overlord is careless. If he is a member of the Arcane Order, or even of some other secret wizard cult that has a tower somewhere nearby, it's a pretty good bet he's not careless. Which leads to assumption two: he wanted someone to find all this. That assumption would attribute a rather increased level of danger to this mysterious he. As it means he is actively inviting people to try and find him. Even leaving behind clues that might be traceable to him, like a chronometer. It might spark some to wonder who is hunting whom... O.o
@Psalm, yes. The Arcane Order does in fact have a tower as the central citadel of their compound. All the Orders do. ;-)
@Quint, seeing my in-game post, I think you'll see that your "he already found the body," is exactly what I was getting at. There's no pattern to the dates. But those intellectuals among the group, of which I count Quint as one, would be almost 100% certain that Arthugh was found and left, WITH his research. That could mean a couple things: one, Arthugh's overlord is careless. If he is a member of the Arcane Order, or even of some other secret wizard cult that has a tower somewhere nearby, it's a pretty good bet he's not careless. Which leads to assumption two: he wanted someone to find all this. That assumption would attribute a rather increased level of danger to this mysterious he. As it means he is actively inviting people to try and find him. Even leaving behind clues that might be traceable to him, like a chronometer. It might spark some to wonder who is hunting whom... O.o
You have explained thus and I still don't understand. My assumption was that he died and his death written off in a secret cave under a cabin or yet to be noticed. If the clue is the chronometer I missed how regularly the visitor would come to adjust it.
Psalm, I'm saying there's a strong possibility that Arthugh's master knows he's dead, saw him dead, and left him and his research all the same. Which means that master is not at all afraid of people finding everything you all just found. This would mean that master is either reckless, or cunning to the point of hubris. As your DM, I'm saying that some of the characters in the party would be smart enough to realize that cunning to the point of hubris is a very likely scenario. Which means you are all, likely, beginning an investigation into a man who holds sway with goblin tribes, had a wizard that could cast third level spells at his disposal, cared not that he died, and, possibly, invites outsiders to try and figure out who he is. To put it bluntly, it's possibly that you are all are now pawns in some powerful and mad wizard's attempt to keep his brain occupied through challenge. A man like that is a dangerous adversary. That's really all I was getting at. That and the fact that I belief there are a couple characters, at least, that are capable of coming to that same conclusion.
Doubtful that Hack would parse it all out, but have at it!
I've played barbarians . . . never kicked down doors in real life.