82
You can really tell that they wrote parts of the module before publishing the rules…
(ttrpg.network)
For reference: There is a duell in the module where a shaman tries to secretly help one NPC by continously casting Cure Wounds on him while supposedly only helping him "stand up" after he intentionally let‘s himself fall prone. To spot this, a PC has to specifically declare checking for interventions a then suceed a DC 15 perception-check despite being within earshot…
I mean, I don't see an issue with hiding the casting of a spell from people. I do think it should probably be the other way around for players (do a slight of hand to hide the semantic/material components, and beat passive perception), but in principle I don't see why you shouldn't be able to hide those?
Because it would make subtle-spell kind of redundant and why even use components in the first place if they cannot be used to tell you are casting something?
msbbritain@lemmy.world The issue us that it breaks with the established systems of "reality" without explanation or cause. It's an arbitrary deviation from the established and shared understanding of how things work, with the only available explanatiin being "because I said so, so shut up and don't question me".
It's one thing if there's the equivalent of the Conceal Spell feat and actiin from Pathfinder being leveraged here,but tbat comes with both a build tax and an action tax. If there's no price being paid, it's a little bit of a "fuck you" to the players.
Thanks for pointing this out, that’s better than what I could've said to explain it. The DM can always make changes without adhering to any limitations, but if they are a good DM, they'll at least try to be consistent. And that’s the least I expect from professional writers. (And I similarly expect them to wait for the actual rules of the system to be published before writing an adventure.)