|
After the first murder, when the PCs investigated the scene, they made the Survival check to determine that the tracks were not leonine, so could not have been made by a sphinx.
The new player at the table was playing an alchemist (pregen). I allowed (and suggested) a DC 28 Craft (Alchemy) check to recognize that the tracks had been made by an alchemist under the influence of a feral mutagen and enlarge person spell. He made the check, and from there it was easy to find the real culprit.
The result was that what should have taken 8-12 hours of play was done in about two and a half hours.
Was I wrong to do this? It seemed reasonable at the time, but now I am plagued by doubts.
After the first murder, when the PCs investigated the scene, they made the Survival check to determine that the tracks were not leonine, so could not have been made by a sphinx.
Sounds fine. Working as intended. :)
SIDE NOTE: I did see your other post by the way, about the footprints being too deep. That was my oversight because I didn't check the enlarge person spell carefully enough. But when I read 8 times the weight, I really wanted to take a sidelong look at the Design Team and ask, "Really? 8 times the weight? An ogre is 10-feet tall and only weighs 650 lbs, but enlarge person makes an average adult human fighter 12-feet tall and 1,600 lbs?" But never mind that! I just wanted you to know that I saw it and noted it. I just didn't have anything good to say back. I thought your fix was great.
The new player at the table was playing an alchemist (pregen). I allowed (and suggested) a DC 28 Craft (Alchemy) check to recognize that the tracks had been made by an alchemist under the influence of a feral mutagen and enlarge person spell. He made the check, and from there it was easy to find the real culprit.
The result was that what should have taken 8-12 hours of play was done in about two and a half hours.
Was I wrong to do this? It seemed reasonable at the time, but now I am plagued by doubts.
I say this as gently and as kindly as I can. Yeah, I think that was a bad call. You gave way too much information. I would not have told him anything with his Craft (alchemy) check. The footprints are physical evidence, but there is nothing actually directly "alchemical" about the footprints themselves. There is no chemical trace. There is no residual magic.
In a parallel example, let's consider a hole in the ground. Just a theoretical example. One can point to the hole in the ground and speculate "how did this get here?" You can make a Knowledge (arcana) check and reasonably conclude it was caused by magic. Yet, if there is no lingering aura, it could also have been caused by a shovel. Maybe Survival might find the footprints around the hole which suggested actual labor, and not magic
Going back to the adventure - I think Survival and Knowledge (nature) would have been more appropriate skills to use in the case of the actual footprints. Furthermore those skills would at best tell you that the tracks were not caused by the creature that supposedly made them. Really, that is all there is to be learned by the use of any skill.
That was the intent of having the footprints. Not to give away the killer, but to demonstrate to the PCs that somebody is staging evidence and doing a frame-job.
Now.. I'm not writing this to make you feel bad. Part of me does want to defend my module, but not at the expense of making you feel dumb—so I hope I haven't. And I'm sorry it wasn't as fun of an experience as you wanted. I have made less than perfect calls myself, and all you can do is laugh it off, try to learn from it.. hopefully run the adventure for a different group with better results.
One tip in the future I might pass on? There's a finite limit to what you can achieve with a skill roll. It doesn't matter how high that roll is, you're not required to reward a high roll with an impossible result.
All a skill should have been able to do is determine what those tracks were not. The process by which the fake tracks were created could have been done a multitude of different ways, and there's no way to get that precise and specific with that little evidence to go on.
For the sake of argument, would you accept a high-DC Spellcraft check to say, "maybe these are the tracks of a humanoid under the influence of Enlarge Person"? You could, in theory, use that to reconcile the disproportionate weight-gain of the spell.
I'm brainstorming here.
Look at your question again. You're asking what is hypothetically possible. Anything is hypothetically possible. What Theconiel did was give hard, factual, accurate information. In a world of so many possibilities, how does one get so precise and correct with nothing to study or base it upon?
My apologies. I want to give an indepth answer, but time is not my side today. Think about this, and in a few days I'll get back with you.
|
Look at your question again. You're asking what is hypothetically possible. Anything is hypothetically possible. What Theconiel did was give hard, factual, accurate information. In a world of so many possibilities, how does one get so precise and correct with nothing to study or base it upon?My apologies. I want to give an indepth answer, but time is not my side today. Think about this, and in a few days I'll get back with you.
I'm not sure I see what point you're making.
As I see it, the PCs need to establish there is something "off" about the tracks. The explanation given in the module doesn't tally with the rules regarding the killer's method. I'm arguing that the PCs could potentially recognise that disparity (because it doesn't tally with the deception the killer is trying to create either) through an understanding of common magical effects. We'd presumably have to note the prints as unusually deep rather than the opposite.
My suggestion would be that an already suspicious party could deduce that the prints had been magically 'staged' (as a low level wizard with a decent Spellcraft check is probably familiar with the unusual weight gain caused by Enlarge Person).
What I'm asking is whether (as the author) you'd consider that a reasonable method of reconciling those issues?
I'm not sure I see what point you're making.
My pardons in the delay, I had to finish another project, catch my breath, and take care of some real world stuff.
I made the mistake of thinking your question/comment pertained directly to the original poster situation. Or that you might be the player they were referring to. So I'll try again. I'll take a look at this revised post and answer it at face value.
As I see it, the PCs need to establish there is something "off" about the tracks.
Correct! I am not trying to cherry-pick your post apart sentence by sentence but I see this a "core" premise to the situation. The tracks exist to be discovered, and to be discovered as false. In this we are in complete agreement.
The explanation given in the module doesn't tally with the rules regarding the killer's method.
That is unfortunate, and I have admitted it. Still, the core design objective is achieved. Tracks are introduced and there is a logical means to prove they are false.
I'm arguing that the PCs could potentially recognise that disparity (because it doesn't tally with the deception the killer is trying to create either) through an understanding of common magical effects. We'd presumably have to note the prints as unusually deep rather than the opposite.
The adventure describes how the tracks were made. That is not up for debate. I suppose the tracks should be deeper than what the text describes. That's fine, the tracks can be shown to not belong to s sphinx either by being too deep instead of too light.
Whether they're too deep or too light, what does it matter, so long as they can figure out they're wrong?
My suggestion would be that an already suspicious party could deduce that the prints had been magically 'staged' (as a low level wizard with a decent Spellcraft check is probably familiar with the unusual weight gain caused by Enlarge Person).
What I'm asking is whether (as the author) you'd consider that a reasonable method of reconciling those issues?
If the question is: "Do you think its reasonable for me to tell my players players that magic could have been used to make the tracks?" (with Spellcraft, suspicions and so forth, etc.)
My answer would be sure, "Yes, that's fine". It is true. Magic may have been used to create the tracks. I do like it better if the players asked their own questions and you just provided answers—but either way it is no big deal. Whatever makes for a fun game for you and your group.
If the question is: "Do you think with Spellcraft, etc., that it is reasonable that I tell my players that it was a wizard with enlarge person?"
My answer would be no. That is not a reasonable use of the Skill. There's no basis to make any assumption about the class or the specific spell—especially if you're the one volunteering that specific information. If you want to tell them "magic might have been used" that is entirely different.
Are you seeing that this comes down to a general statement versus very specific details?
If the players were the ones to actually ask, "These tracks are really deep, would enlarge person account for the depth and size?" Then, with a decent Spellcraft check, I would say, "Yes, that is possible. There's no absolutely way to be sure, but it is plausible." I might add, "It doesn't account for the shape of the footprint however."
The actual description of Spellcraft allow you to identify a spell as it is being cast. Not to identify a spell based upon its effects well after the fact, especially when there is no "magic" here to study. You have a set of physical tracks here. There is no lingering magical aura to study to draw any conclusions from.
I do appreciate that you want to treat the PCs as if they're intelligent and experienced adventurers. That's why conceding that 'magic could have been used' is not unreasonable. Nevertheless, that's where I think you should draw the line.
You sound as if you have a firm grasp on the situation though. You don't need me to give you permission to make your own determination. Personally, I just don't like the precedent. In this case, its not that unreasonable, but in the future I don't want players constantly asking me to make Spellcraft checks every time they see something they don't understand in order to reverse-engineer what happened.
|
|
The actual description of Spellcraft allow you to identify a spell as it is being cast. Not to identify a spell based upon its effects well after the fact, especially when there is no "magic" here to study. You have a set of physical tracks here. There is no lingering magical aura to study to draw any conclusions from.
I would concede the point that Knowledge (Arcana) might be more appropriate (perhaps dovetailing with any knowledge regarding the sphinx, since they're covered by the same skill).
I do appreciate that you want to treat the PCs as if they're intelligent and experienced adventurers. That's why conceding that 'magic could have been used' is not unreasonable. Nevertheless, that's where I think you should draw the line.
My concern there is that "magic could have been used" is somewhat of a non-answer in the Golarion setting - it's true in the vast majority of cases. Clearly what sort of magic is very hard to determine through pure deduction, unless there is some strange discrepancy in how a particular spell works in relation to normal observed experience (i.e. Enlarge Person does funny things to the weight/mass of the target). I suppose there's the related question of whether magic is known to operate according to consistent laws... it's not a given.
You sound as if you have a firm grasp on the situation though. You don't need me to give you permission to make your own determination. Personally, I just don't like the precedent. In this case, its not that unreasonable, but in the future I don't want players constantly asking me to make Spellcraft checks every time they see something they don't understand in order to reverse-engineer what happened.
Oh I'm not looking for permission, I'm simply interested in how you (as the author) think about the game.