Familiar Information Recall
I suppose at that point it would be a question of how good Astre's memory is.  I related things like physical appearances as being exact because Astre relayed the information to Mallory rather immediately; Kaltro only moments after seeing him, and the murder scene longer but after giving the entire room and its contents considerable scrutiny with his undivided attention.  It's reasonable that what he experienced would still be very clear in his mind at that point.  Same for things that Astre was transmitting to Mallory as he was still in Telepathy range, like the appearance of buildings and such.

Now relaying information to her days or longer after the fact, sure, that would absolutely come into question.  It's unlikely Astre or Mallory would be able to produce a mental and/or illusory image of Targos in the same amount of detail later this same week, for instance.  At least not without a skill check involved (INT?  WIS?  Not sure).  So far pretty much all the information Mallory's used via Astre's spying was rather immediate, but I can absolutely keep unreliable narration in mind for the future regarding longer delays or confusing circumstances Astre might encounter.

Writing Blind, At Speed
As Mallory is a Wizard and confirmed to have plenty of professional tutoring under other spellcasters who surely had little patience for slow students, I dare say she's qualified to take notes at high speed and accuracy.  Also, I mentioned in narration she's using a writing stylus (which is basically a medieval pencil - a bit of lead or charcoal housed in a wooden frame to varying degrees of ornateness), not ink and quill, so she has no need to pause.

I still hold to my disagreement on the matter of forgeries, as in 5e that's in regard to a precise action of imitation and duplication.  If it's just a case of Mallory trying to write accurately at speed without necessary concern for duplicating Naerth's handwriting, I'd personally set it as a Slight of Hand check instead since the focus of the action is more on swift and accurate dexterity.

Ciphers and Spellcasting

To point, that's what "Comprehend Languages" is for; it's the only spell in 5e that translates unknown languages, so it should be able to handle this.  If Mallory can get the entire message accurately copied down, the spell should be able to translate it for her.  If the cipher is double layered (encoded text and innuendo phrasing) then the spell would break the encoding to let her read what it literally states, but not provide any context for the innuendos.

If Mallory can't get all the information copied (bad angle on the Perception check, flawed transcription on the INT/DEX check) then the spell wouldn't work fully and then all the rest you mentioned kicks in as she'll have to do things manually with partial information.  Does that seem like a fair middle ground?

Familiar Telepathy
We're getting so granular on this that I think we've missed the plot, but I would say it's not only about how good Astre is at recalling things, but how he communicates these things to Mallory. If he can project an image directly into her head, such as one might think when one pictures something simple like a flower, or a book, then there is no need for tapping into Astre's senses, since he can just relay what he sees.

I would more so say that any imagery he conveys is far more abstract — if he says flower, Mallory won't know what specific kind of flower it is. Even then, I think we would be better off avoiding imagery and "snapshots" all together, limiting it to just words and spoken language. We've established Mallory can understand Astre-speak, so I would just say he signals "mrow meow mrow" and Mallory knows he's stalking Arkemos.

It won't have anything to do with the immediacy of the relay — the information will be an approximation no matter what.

The one reason we do this is so that we force Mallory to use the 'share senses' feature more. It would also serve to put the Familiar on a 100' leash. Like a normal Wizard with a normal familiar would have to. There's no reason to elevate the Tressym above and beyond the extra features it already gets. If I have to impose INT/WIS checks to enforce it, I will. Most likely I will have Astre, not Mallory, do these Skill checks to see how much information he can remember and can communicate to Mallory (i.e, which memorization techniques he utilizes and how adept he is at them). Sound fair?

Comprehend Languages


Yeah, I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't work. As you say, it'll work on Druidic, but not Thieves' Cant.

I can write a post detailing what she ends up with, but you'll have to give me a moment.

Concerning Handwriting and Cyphers, and Utilizing Tools instead of Skill Checks


I would personally reserve Sleight of Hand checks for subterfuge, as the description of the Skill specifies. I've run into this issue before, where we equate Sleight of Hand to the Dexterity of one's fingers/hands. Perhaps Forgery Kit isn't too accurate for this one — we could instead utilize the Calligrapher's Supplies. So if Mallory has proficiency in that, she can go ahead and add her Proficiency Bonus to the Dex roll.

Cyphers and encoding messages seem like a very natural extension of the properties of a Forgery Kit to me — as with forgery, it concerns craftiness with letters and documents. It's definitely more fitting than Sleight of Hand. Perhaps we could use Calligrapher's Supplies for this as well, but I don't think it any more fitting than the Forgery Kit. So Forgery Kit it is. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:55, Fri 20 Aug 2021.

Relevant Tool Kits/Proficiency

While it makes little difference for Mallory either way, as she lacks Proficiency or the necessary kits themselves for either, I would agree that Calligrapher's Supplies would fit in here or in similar future applications.

I wasn't getting much useful information from the DMG, so I checked Xanathar's Guide as it has an expanded list of things you can do with Tool Kits and examples of how they may be applied.  All of the various skill check examples used with a Forgery Kit (Arcana, Deception, Investigation, etc) explicitly focus on the creation or identification of a convincingly fake document, which is simply not the case here.  Calligrapher's Supplies are more about identifying and investigating writings, but it at least has something relevant in the "Decipher Treasure Map" function that permits a character to identify hidden messages contained in the map's details.  That's about as close to a code or cipher as either Tool description mentions.

I saw that, and read a post from someone utilizing Calligrapher's Supplies for the exact need we're trying to fill. However, I would say this is more just 'familiarity with inks and handwriting from different epochs'. It does specifically limit it to maps, which I find kind of strange, and it does mention "hidden messages", which can have a many interpretations. Overall, I think the designers just didn't give deciphering/encoding enough attention.

I stand by the fact that Forgery Kit is applicable. Calligrapher's Supplies more so pertains . . . calligraphy. If it weren't for the mention of maps, I would be perfectly happy relegating it to just analyzing handwriting in a stylistic fashion. It's something that could come up often enough too, though proficiency in Calligrapher's Supplies isn't all too common.

Forgery Kits contain all the supplies you need to write letters, just like Calligrapher's Supplies do, while being way more in line with cunning and misconduct. I find it thematically more fitting. And it's not about the tools anyhow, it's about the knowledge.

Now that I think about it, there's a lot of overlap between these two tools. Would I reasonably deny someone with proficiency in Forgery Kits from analyzing handwriting? No, it's a natural assumption to make that someone proficient in Forgery Kits is good at analyzing handwriting. They have to be, because otherwise how would they copy it? And vice versa — someone with a good understanding of calligraphy would be able to copy someone's handwriting. It leads me to think that we would be better off collapsing these two tools into one. It would serve to make the proficiency more lucrative as well.

I do certainly agree that some Tool Kits could stand to be consolidated.  There's a number which seem terribly redundant or not at all useful to take on their own outside of being part of a niche character design.  Cobbler's, Glassblower's, Potter's Tools, WoTC?  Really?

My general approach would be to combine various kits based on their overall theme as opposed to their precise contents.  Something like this:

Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit -> "Imposter's Kit"
Combine both kits into an all-in-one toolbox of items necessary for a character to pull off a convincing false identity, falsifying both appearance and documents.

Alchemist's Supplies, Brewer's Supplies, Herbalism Kit, Poisoner's Tools -> "Apothecary's Tools"
All of these tools have the same general function of identifying compounds, collecting ingredients that can be made into potables/medicine/potions/poisons, and then crafting them into such.

Calligraphy Supplies, Painter's Supplies -> "Historian's Tools"
Supplies for one who specializes in identifying, analyzing, and recreating writing, art, and historical documents.

Cobbler's Tools, Weaver's Tools, Leatherworker's Tools -> "Tailor's Tools"
All the tools necessary for the production, repair, and study of garments and light armor.

Meanwhile, various tool kits could simply be folded into a single greater tool kit.  For instance, such as folding Cartographer's Tools into Navigator's Tools, or folding Glassblower's/Jeweler's/Potter's Tools into the broader Tinker's Tools.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:12, Fri 20 Aug 2021.

Tools and Guilds
I think it's WotC's attempt to simulate medieval guilds in a fantasy world. And if it's part of the game, it should crop up in play, hence proficiency in all these niche supplies. It's not necessarily a bad idea, except some of these are so non-adventurous that they just end up being incredibly boring. No-one's sat down at the table to discuss the details of glassblowing or pottery, we're here to cast spells and stab goblins with swords. The issue is especially blatant since these specific tools are so overshadowed by the actually useful tools (looking at you, Thieves' Tools).

As you touch upon, it becomes more about providing alternatives for the players so they can cement their character's backstory, as opposed to being designed for actual play. And distilling them for usefulness might be well and swell, but I don't think we should lose track of this, because it does bring something valuable to the table. Namely more fleshed out characters.

I like many of your changes, though I have a couple of suggestions.

Since we're distilling these anyway down to fewer kits, if we could introduce Cryptographer's Tools in the "Imposter's Kit" I'd be happy.

Calligraphy Supplies, Painter's Supplies ➔ "Historian's Artist's Tools"
I think this communicates more effectively as to what skills the tool provides proficiency in. Historian's Tools is too all-encompassing and scholarly, and not necessarily what the player might look for if they wish to make an artistically inclined character.

Jeweler's Tools, Woodcarver's Tools, Potter's Tools, Mason's Tools, Glassblowing Tools ➔ "Crafter's Tools"
This'll be the "specialized" option where all those incredibly niche things can coexist. Somehow. You'd need to provide some flavortext for it, or perhaps a table with components to choose from so the player can customize their kit. I considered lumping Glassblowing Tools in with Smith's Tools, since both are utilized in a forge, but I'm not sure a smith and a glassblower share many similarities in skillset.

Navigator's Tools and Cartographer's Tools can just be collapsed into Navigator's Tools (or Cartographer's Tools, for that matter. I think you can pick either one). I agree wholeheartedly. A Navigator should have access to maps, and the know-how to draw them. And why in god's name would deciphering secret messages on treasure maps NOT BE ON EITHER OF THESE???.

Smith's Tools can stand on its own two legs. The fact that Clerics have an entire subclass dedicated to the concept is evidence enough for this.

Tinker's Tools is also fine, but I'd maybe rename it to "Repair Kit" or something. If anything, it's overshadowed by Mending. Or perhaps Tinkers' Tools can be dropped completely, and we'll say Crafter's Tools lets you repair and analyze stuff. It would hardly be gamebreaking.

Cook's Utensils is also fine on its own, albeit a bit weak. It doesn't really have any qualities that serves to unify it with another tool or kit.

I think that's all of them. In conclusions, this would probably require another few revisions before it could actually be implemented. As it stands, we'd end up with nine or ten tools/kits total, depending on the fate of Tinker's Tools. And I would dare say it's an improvement over the official nineteen.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:39, Fri 20 Aug 2021.

Calligraphy Supplies, Painter's Supplies
I was honestly fumbling for a name on this one; I agree that Historian isn't ideal but I struggled to find anything more apt (Paleographer's Tools was honestly on the table, which is even worse).  I didn't want to use the word "Artist" simply because 5e already collectively refers to all tool/supply kits as "Artisan's Tools" and the two are too similar.  Kind of a weird dead-end in naming conventions for a system so focused on precise terminology, right?  It's Sauron/Saruman all over again.

Maybe something like a "Scribe's Tools", after the monks who made illuminated manuscripts?  Possibly with a little alchemical overlap for crafting your own inks/utensils.

Tinkering, Crafting, and Construction
Agreed on Glassblowing not quite fitting into Smithing; they both use heat forges, but it's a very different focus for intent.  I'd generally fit Glassblowing more alongside Jeweler's Tools functionality, especially when it comes to making glass jewelry.  But yeah, packaging all the broad craftsman's tools together and allowing the player to describe their own focus feels better than having a ton of individual ones bloating things out.

Things like Smithing, Carpentry, and Masonry honestly feel like major trades that stand alone since they each focus on large-scale construction or analysis.  They're fine as they are.  There'd be some minor overlap with other tool kits where armor and weapons were concerned (wood and leather vs. metal) but not enough to be an obstacle.

As for Tinker's Tools, I kind of feel like it's a tool kit looking for a purpose.  The skill descriptions in Xanathar's Guide makes it seem more like it's intended for research purposes rather than functional repairs, as 5e doesn't have a "damaged gear" system that would make it relevant for anything other than fluff.  It does potentially have more utility than "Mending" for a non-magical character or damage that is too big for a cantrip to handle.  I suppose it's more like "Thieves' Tools" in being directly tied to a PC ability with Gnomish tinkerers and hopes to stand alone in that regard.

Cook's Utensils
It's overall not that different from a "Mess Kit" in the equipment table; I suppose one could be more elaborate than another, but there's no actual mechanics attached to either to make it noteworthy.  Cooking needs some love in 5e - I see a lot of player homebrew stuff making cooking more useful and having it add temporary minor buffs, but that's easily a very slippery slope.  It might also have more outstanding use in games where food/drink management is part of the experience, or where food preparation to ensure it's safe to eat for survival factors in, but most games don't bother with that kind of minutia to begin with.  Reliable sustenance is just kind of a given in most cases.

Barring making some homebrew of our own for meals otherwise, I'd say Cook's Utensils are just one of those outliers that doesn't really fill a purpose in the system, but would be a blatant oversight if it wasn't there at all.

If I had to stab at it, I think a reasonable function Cook's Utensils might gain is allowing a character who has enough resources to feed themselves (such as from the Outlander's background ability, or a successful hunting/foraging skill check) could make a Ration as opposed to having to buy them?  Pass a skill check, get a Ration which are pretty much good forever.  Fail the DC and the food is still edible, but you screwed it up and it won't keep longer than normal.  There's some minor potential for seller's abuse (5 SP per Ration could yield a solid profit), but that could be handled easily by a DM using common sense with players trying to sell things they've crafted.

Artist vs Artisan
While I understand your concern, I think this is a case where accuracy triumphs over "readability". Artisan and Artist may look similar, but they have two distinct meanings. As for why they called it "Artisan's Tools", this probably relates back to WotC trying to emulate medieval guilds. I don't mind it, especially since I'm hard pressed to come up with a better descriptor. In the case of the Saruman/Sauron similarity, I feel it serves to add a bit of verisimilitude; a "real" world doesn't care if certain names/terms sound similar.

My problem with "Scribe's Tools" is that it's too closely linked to writing, and it would read that way for most. Besides, the monks were mostly concerned with copying biblical passages, and the adornment and miniature illustrations on illuminated manuscripts were always meant to supplement the text. Meanwhile, you have a ton of paintings popping up in this era that were hung up and viewed on their own (or laid on the ground, as is the case with byzantine mosaics, but that'd be masonry). Then again it's pointless to discuss paintings from just the early Middle Ages. I would imagine most people envision their Forgotten Realms' paintings more reminiscent of the Renaissance or Roman era. There's not too much information to be found on this exact topic on the wiki, understandably, but I did find this (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/The_Prophet), which would be closer to paintings that cropped up in the late Middle Ages if one were to compare it an era. (Though I would think twice to consider one diegetic painting from one artist to be conclusive of the overarching style found within the fantasy world). I imagine many of the games implement some form of style, as they're forced to flesh out the visuals, and that it's again closer to Renaissance era, or Baroque, or any of the eras superseding the early/mid Middle Ages.

Regardless, my point is that illuminated manuscripts were only a small portion of what we might label "drawing" or "painting". "Scribe" is too closely related to writing alone for my taste. I would still be partial to "Artist's Tools".

Masonry and Carpentry
Right, I forgot Carpenter's Tools existed.

I agree, keeping them separate from Crafter's Tools is better, and I considered this when I was writing up that last post. While the tools one may employ may be somewhat similar, there's a clear difference in scale (in both tool and product), though masonry can be somewhat detail-oriented, if one considers sculpting or cartouches and similar decorative work. These two might crop up enough for them to warrant their own category in certain games, for example if you utilize strongholds, or if your game has lots (several months/years) of downtime to allow room for a character to construct something at scale. Would one bunch them together? If so, I run into the issue of coming up with a good all-encompassing name. "Builder's Tools"? Sounds less serious than both Masonry and Carpentry. Perhaps just leaving them separate is for the best.

Cooking and Food
Xanathar's ties Cook's Utensils to short rests (everyone gets to roll one extra Hit Dice), which seems very intuitive, but you run the risk of making it a must-have skill if you fumble the tuning and make it slightly too strong. It's never a question whether you will or won't have short rests, unlike many of these other Tools and Supplies, where you have to stumble upon a specific thing within the world for the proficiency and/or any extra abilities that come along to be useful.


Doesn't sound like a bad implementation. Make it so it has to take place during a short-rest and put a cap on how many rations the character can make, and I think you have a working system. If they wish to spend a considerable amount of downtime to forage and make rations at a profit, I'd just let them, similarly to how I'd let a smith forge weapons or a mason help with construction work to earn some change on the side.

Carpentry and Masonry
Yeah, they're best left alone.  Those two, and Vehicle Proficiency, are major trades where a character or NPC could reasonably make their entire living off doing just that alone.  Not only in the money it could make them, but the time required to perform the job meaning it would take up the majority of their days.  Like, a character might reasonably be able to do Woodcarving on the road to make extra coin between adventures, but Carpentry is a whole other beast.  It makes more sense for them to be their own individual Proficiencies rather than being bundled together.

Cook's Utensils
Honestly, I kind of feel like the very presence of Cook's Utensils Proficiency is odd.  The various examples of its uses listed in Xanathar's Guide feel like they're stretching to justify its existence.  The extra 1 HD per Short Rest is grand (especially since it would stack with a Bard's "Song of Rest" ability; dinner and a show), but the rest just seem like normal things anyone would be able to do.

I would understand a specific character not having basic cooking skills or understanding local food trends (a foreigner from a completely different region, a pampered Noble who's never had to cook for themselves, etc) but the broad majority of characters (and especially NPCs) in a given setting would reasonably be able to forage and cook for themselves as just part of daily living in a pseudo-medieval setting like this.  I feel like the current functions are so fundamental that everyone should just have the proficiency by default with specific exceptions, or that the functions need to be made more narrow and specialized to justify it being its own proficiency.

I don't know... I'm probably just overthinking it.  Perhaps the proficiency is meant to differentiate between someone who can cook and someone who's a notably good/technical chef.  It just feels like it's lacking as-written.


I'd set it as per Long Rest, myself, as drying/smoking/preserving food takes a fairly long period of time and Cook's Utensils already have a function set on Short Rest.

Help Action only applies in combat. What you're looking for is 'Working Together'. Or rather, the Help Action enables 'Working Together' in combat.


I'm not sure I should grant Mallory this Advantage. Working Together is very much dependent on the situation, so I should rule on it so that we avoid situations where players run haywire with it. Advantage is something that's not too easy to come by in other circumstances. Nor should it be. And I don't want Mallory to be granted Advantage on any Skill Check as long as Astre is present. While you absolutely haven't exploited it up until now (Mallory has made plenty of Arcana Checks without Astre's help, for instance), I'm wary of being too liberal in the allowance of Working Together with a Familiar. Especially since a Tressym is powerful enough as is.

But let's look at it from another point of view; would I grant Mallory Advantage on an Insight Check if Rhydd was the one helping her instead? Arguably, no. And there's nothing inherent to the Tressym that should separate Astre from Rhydd or any other Player Character in this case. I would certainly not count Keen Smell to be applicable in this scenario — the guard's tells are not going to be based on scents. There is, of course, his telepathic bond to Mallory to consider, which does make this slightly more of a gray area. Nonetheless, I suspect the designer left the last paragraph of the rule intentionally vague, so it would ultimately depend on DM judgement.

And here's my judgement: I'll allow it in this instance and (let this serve as a heads up) perhaps deny a similar use in the future. Think of it as an Inspiration for the help you've given me with collecting the information on crafting magic items.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:06, Thu 13 Jan 2022.

Help vs. Working Together
Astute, though they are functionally the same thing and it's just easier to refer to them as "Help" across the board.

Caster/Familiar Combo
Mallory and Astre have used this sort of practice before with other skill checks without issue raised, such as with Survival and Investigation checks.  It's part of the character concept in that they each have opposite strengths and weaknesses to each other, and they work in unison buddy-cop style.  I'm certainly not going to say it isn't fishing for Advantage, but I do try to apply it only when I think it's reasonable to do so within the assisting character's capabilities.

By RAW, there's nothing at all preventing any Familiar - not just Tressyms - from assisting another creature at any time so long as the assistance can actually yield tangible benefits.  It's one of the core functions of having a Familiar, balanced by the fact that they cannot use the Attack Action to directly contribute to battle.  Though if you feel this is something that needs to be restricted then that's a matter of its own worth discussing.

Who's Assisting Who?
As narrated in the post, this isn't Astre helping Mallory but rather the other way around; she's assisting him.  Hence why the roll is using Astre's +1 WIS mod rather than Mallory's -1.  She's relying on his instincts to give her useful information that she can analyze and respond to.  My reasoning is animals are better at perceiving moods and nonverbal tells; they have a wider array of senses, much higher innate Perception, and greater capacity for nonverbal communication than Humans do, while she can contextualize what he notices and handle any more traditional psychological tells she notices herself.

As for something specific to Astre over other party members, it would be his existence as a Familiar.  He and Mallory are perpetually telepathically linked and have known each other their entire lives.  This is a thing they've done countless times before over the years and would reasonably have great familiarity with, not some impromptu stunt they just pull off the top of their heads.

Going Forward
I'm certainly fine with limiting use of this sort of action from here on out.  While I don't deny wanting to pick up every bit of an edge to our benefit as possible, I'm not inclined to try and to squeeze our Advantage non-stop or create any ruling issues.  I'll be certain to ask next time there's a situation where the benefit of assistance wouldn't be obvious outright.

Not that it matters since she'll be within range for Levitate regardless, but wouldn't this necessitate 35' of movement? 5' to get to the opening in the Rope Trick Room, 10' to get down, 15' left over to get to the N column at best, and 5' more feet to get to the M column. 35'. This is why I've positioned both Rhydd and Khulekani in the N column.

I'm just wondering if I'm missing something since both Rhydd and you have specified the M column as your destination now. But as I said, Mallory will still be exactly 12 squares away from the Werewolverine if she stands in N5.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:39, Tue 12 July 2022.

I wasn't counting the 5' to get to the opening of the Rope Trick because that operates on the idea that Mallory would first step over the entryway and then begin her descent.  My interpretation was that she just went from where she was standing directly to her descent down the rope; mechanically, it's moving diagonally into an adjacent square.

Imagine you were perched atop the edge of a wall.  There's a difference in how you move through space if you stood up and then walked directly off forward into space to drop down versus if you slid yourself off the edge downward.

As for where Mallory ends up, the intent was to be behind or beside Rhydd in some manner so she wouldn't be in his way, wherever that ends up being.

Aaah, I see. Diagonal movement in three dimensional space. For flying in open air I would fully accept it. However, in this particular case, I could see it argued one way or the other. Your character still has to move across the flat plane and grab the rope, which I assume they do before they fully begin their descent. You would necessarily have an flipped L-shape movement, making the first 5' count.

But if it were steps (meaning a 5' drop to the adjacent square) it would definitely not cost 10' of movement. The existence of the rope, and the fact that it's more than a 5' drop, is what complicates things somewhat.

Either way, Rhydd bears no penalty from Mallory being in front of him, but I see the narrative reasons for why Mallory would be either beside or behind Rhydd and not in front. We'll keep the battlemap as is and I'll make the correction if ever this scenario reoccurs.

Would Tongues work in conjuction with Speak with Dead? Tongues requires a willing Creature, while Speak with Dead requires a Corpse.



I am hesitant to allow this, since it would require classifying the skull as a Creature, which it probably isn't. The workaround would be to animate it, since it would then become both a Corpse and a Creature. I don't know of any Necromancy that can animate just a skull, though.

And because it was interesting, I also ran into some conflicting opinions on whether or not Speak with Dead can be cast on skeletons (lower case 's') and by extension skulls.

Furthermore;

Whether or not the head bone structure in conjunction with the jaw is up for debate. I have not specified if the skull even has a jaw, as I believe those do tend to come loose if the bones get jingled up. This does rule out casting Speak with Dead on a finger bones, though, as if a skull is eligible as a 'corpse', so would any other part of the skeleton be.

But I'm going to allow Speak with Dead. Seems silly not to. Plus, we run into some weird territory if we disallow casting it on a skeleton, as the spell does not specify how fresh the corpse has to be, so we're left to speculate on how much tissue a skeleton must have before it becomes a corpse.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:29, Wed 02 Aug 2023.

For what it's worth, extreme cold tends to mummify soft tissues that would otherwise rot away. Entirely possible that there's enough mass left around the jaw hinges for it to be a stiff but functional "mouth."

In reply to Idrianthe Mar (msg # 40):

Granted, but the skull was gobbled up by one of the Black Oozes. That would make short work of any residual tissue.

Edit: Sorry, I realize now we may be talking about different skulls. There were two you found; one on the scholar in the study, and one (aberrant) you found in the chamber above the disc room. It makes sense if you're talking about the latter. Did you take the aberrant one with you? I don't remember.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:37, Wed 02 Aug 2023.

I actually forgot there were two skulls! I don't remember which we took, that will be for Mallory to answer.

Totally agreebabout the ooze-consumed skull, those soft tissues were definitely being digested and wouldn't benefit from low temperature.

Actually we have five skulls.  The Netherese Scholar, the Aberrant Skull Floating in Ooze, the Caged Thri-Kreen, the Gnomish Ceremorph Corpse, and Apple's Corpse.  All presumably viable for "Speak with Dead", barring any sort of overt destruction.

Speak With Dead
The spell says the skull needs to have "a mouth", not "a jaw".  Strictly speaking, the upper jaw/maxilla portion of the skull is part of the mouth, lower jaw/mandible notwithstanding.  In cases where I've had to DM it, I've always ruled that so long as the skull is mostly intact and not just in fragments, the spell works.  But that's my take.

Tongues' Target
The target of the spell would be whoever is asking questions of a given skull, not the skull itself.  For example, if Mallory casts it on Vellynne, she'll be able to understand any language - Loross included.  The questionable part comes in the second half of the spell text.


That's the rub and the big gamble here.  The skull doesn't qualify as being a Creature and "Speak with Dead" only allows it to communicate with the languages it knew in life.  So unless the skull's spirit knows a compatible language that Vellynne herself speaks, she might not be able to actually ask it any questions herself.  For example, if the skull exclusively speaks Loross, we're out of luck because it won't be able to understand the questions we ask it.  But if it also speaks Common, Draconic, Elvish, or some other language that would've been commonplace at the time it was alive, we're good to go.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:54, Thu 03 Aug 2023.

Alright. My original ruling stands; all fully or mostly intact skulls regardless of degree of decomposition are considered Corpses and are thus eligible for Speak with Dead. None of them are eligible as either the target or the effects of Tongues, as none are Creatures.
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:13, Thu 03 Aug 2023.

Range
While it is true that a Tressym can detect if something is Poisonous through either Taste, Touch, or Smell without the need for a roll, a range to the ability is not specified, nor is there any mention on the matter of checking many different items at the same time to determine which (if any) items are poisonous. There are two different interpretations of the rule the way I see it:

1. The Tressym can determine whether or not one specific item is Poisonous by being in close proximity to it and sensing it specifically.
   
2. The Tressym can determine whether or not any item in the range of its sensing is Poisonous.

2 is obviously more powerful than 1. One is a close-proximety detector where each item has to be sensed in turn, while the other is an ambient Poison detector running continously. In the case of Taste or Touch, it is obvious 1 is the correct interpretation, because you have to be in direct contact with something Taste or Touch to sense it specifically. Smell is different, but my initial inclination is to interpret it to be limited in the same way Taste or Touch is, since they are all mentioned with equal emphasis. But Smell is obviously different from Taste or Touch and can be better compared to Hearing or Sight. should we accept 2, two outcomes are possible in the case where Poison is detected:

1. The Tressym knows there is one or several Poisonous item in the range of its Smelling ability without knowing how many or which specifically.
   
2. The Tressym knows exactly which item or items in the range of its Smelling ability is Poisonous and how many there are of them without the need for further investigation.

Now, you do mentioned Astre is only checking the tea (specific), but that the casting is done subtly and out of Harai's line of sight (distant). It is logical that unless Harai's line of sight is diverted through distraction, the tea will be within it. Hence, Astre is not able to stick his snout into the cup without being discovered.

But he might not have to depending on the range of the ability. It's not specified, so it's probably just up to each DM. I'll have to arbitrarily settle on a number as a cats range of smelling in the real world is too far to inform my decision (4 miles is probably too far). This is also a Magical ability we can assume is inherent only of Tressyms, so it's direct transcription to a cat's ordinary smell is not given. I'll rule that the Tressym can detect if any items within 15' are Poisonous, as long as the smell is not restricted or blocked from reaching Astre (e.g. kept in a container which fully prevents the smell from leaking). Astre is certainly within 15' in this specific circumstance.

Accuracy (Proximity and Direction)
Is Smell a directional sense? If Astre moves, he can probably determine where the scent is coming from, but can he if he remains stationary? Hearing and seeing is directional because we (and Tressyms) have two eyes and two ears, each of which registers the sensory input slightly differently (angle in the case of eyes, and time in the case of ears). We (and cats) also have two nostrils, but they are so close together that we humans, at least, are incapable of immediately determining the proximity and direction of the smell without multiple samples (i.e. changing our reference point by moving). It is possible a cat can. A Hammerhead shark can, because its nostrils are spaced so far apart. This is an aside anyway, as Astre can probably accurately determine the proximity and direction by moving his head slightly.

With this in mind, I'll rule that the Tressym can accurately determine within 15' which items are Poisonous and where they are located.

Confidence
Does it matter how strong the smell of the Poison is? RAW, no. In the context of realism of the fictional world? Probably. Different Poisons have different chemical compositions and would emit different odors. Those can be stronger or weaker, depending on. They can also be masked by overlapping odors, such as the one of the tea. How weak does a Poison have to be for a Tressym to be unsure if there is any close by?

But I don't want a roll to be necessary in every circumstance where a Poison is not present, as it would severely inhibit the strength of the ability. I'd also argue it wouldn't be RAW to gate the certainty behind the results of a roll, as it contains no mentions of any rolls.

Conclusion
A Tressym is always able to determine precisely which items are Poisonous and which aren't within 15', so long as their scent is able to reach him. No rolls are necessary.

This also means it is never necessary to for a Tressym to sense a Poison by Taste or Touch (barring the exceptional case of the loss of its Smelling ability), but that's an inevitable consequence of how the ability is written . . .

The more I think about it, the more I think it should be possible to make a carbon copy, without understanding the spell or the notation it is written in, in less time than it takes to transcribe the spell in your own notation (thereby copying it, as per the rules on a Wizard's Spellbook). We would, however, have to come up with some additional rules . . . Something like 'half the time requirement and without the cost'. We could hammer down something solid.

I am, just for the sake of simplicity, inclined to say that she needs access to the original works at all times. It does run a bit contrary to the edition to construct new rules to accurately simulate every single edge case we can think of. But I'll chew on it for a day, then I'll get back to you.

Very good question. If we scale proportionally we would get:



I have to consider that Colmarr did reach into a smaller Hole to pull out the marble he had dropped in, so while I do think this would severely limit the usefulness of the smaller holes, I'm inclined to keep them as is. But let's bump them up somewhat as we round for the sake of tidiness.


How does that look?



I wanted a way to simulate a bartering scenario where prices fluctuate. It could have been achieved with the "Selling a Magic Item" modifier, although the one I propose is more flexible, if a tad more complicated. As for evaluating the price based off of RAW, it is indeed a Rare item (the full version of the Ise Rune is Very Rare). I tried to consult the tables in this pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/...HUken0_UhQ3Apa6g4SJA), but found it unlisted, so I instead used the lower threshold of Rare items and landed on 1,000 gp.

If we were to make my rules a bit more flexible so that Mallory can add more items to the formula it'd be fairly simple, as 100 is 10% of 1,000.



Err, yeah. The equation did get a bit more complicated than I intended once I had to include all the steps. Alternatively a table could be used, with values from 10-20+ with intervals of 2. That said, this is a more interesting rule for two reasons;

1. It scales for rolls between 10-20, whereas the table in "Selling a Magic Item" only affects rolls 1-10 and roll 21+.
   
2. The player has to set the DC themselves prior to rolling, which adds an element of 'how far they wish to push their luck'.

Whether or not you care for the 50% reduction at a lower roll is a separate matter. I personally don't.
This message was last edited by the GM at 09:34, Tue 27 Feb.

Re-scaled Portable Hole Values
I'm on the fence about the adjusted values as I'm left trying to balance them against their applied usefulness versus other options.  The perks of a "Portable Hole" definitely contribute to its greater worth (functionally weightless, can be more easily transported/smuggled than any other form of storage, no risk of rupturing via physical damage, not limited by weight capacity - only space), but the greatly diminished interior capacity as-listed (and inability to reasonably use it while on the move/in action scenes) still makes it functionally inferior to an Uncommon-tier and presumably much more affordable "Bag of Holding".

The 8" x 2' hole has an interior volume of .70 cubic feet, which is smaller than a standard 2 GP Backpack.
The 1' x 3' hole has an interior volume of 2.36 cubic feet, which is around as much as a 4 SP Basket or a few 1 CP cloth Sacks.

Beyond that, the other two versions greatly outdo a "Bag of Holding" in terms of volume, as expected.  It's an absolutely massive jump in volumetric capacity.  But the smaller iterations are so vastly inferior in terms of carrying capacity that Mallory would be better served buying material components from Colmarr and crafting her own "Bag of Holding" since it would be cheaper and more space-efficient.  I guess having the prices be set out so high for what is essentially a very niche and experimentally-designed item makes sense for the "living breathing world that's not revolving around the Party" aspect, but it does also leave little recourse in the gameplay facet of the situation.  The only reason I'm looking to pick up extradimensional storage space is because I've had Mallory collecting components to a point that I can no longer internally justify her hauling everything in her own backpack, and I can't have her dragging a hand wagon behind her everywhere.  Her mount is gone too, so no handwaving such items as being "in the saddlebags/strapped to Wifni".  But the first two smaller versions of the "Portable Hole" don't perform to the need, so they're basically a non-factor in the discussion to begin with.  The latter two fit her space needs but the cost/bargaining DC is up in the air until we figure out the actual value Colmarr places on the total goods she's offering to sell him/let him study.

Personally, I would round out the listed dimensions as-listed, like so:

8k GP:   6' x 10' (282 cu ft, Standard item specs: basically the size of a commercial cargo van)
3k GP:   4' x  8' (100 cu ft, superior to a Bag of Holding in every regard except accessibility)
2k GP:   3' x  8' (56 cu ft; drastic drop in capacity didn't feel right and I wanted to include a midway.  Relatively comparable to a "Bag of Holding")
1k GP:   2' x  6' (18 cu ft, inferior to Bag of Holding, but greater than Handy Haversack or mundane options)
750 GP:  1' x  4' (3 cu ft, inferior to Handy Haversack's main storage but greater than mundane options)
        10" x  2' (1 cu ft, equal to a Backpack's capacity but with the perks of being a Portable Hole. Colmarr's demo item/original prototype, not for sale)

In Mallory's personal case, she'd go for the 2k option, as that best suits both her potential price range via bartering, her storage needs, and a usefully smaller space requirement for opening the "Portable Hole" - it would fit comfortably on most any given tabletop, floor space, or wall without needing to rearrange furniture.

Bartering and Magic Item Price Scale
I think I need to see more examples and in-practice uses before I can really chime in on how workable this is.  Bartering itself can be so heavily influenced by narrative factors that it's hard to nail down prices in the first place.  It just particularly stood out in this case because of the severe shift in volumetric capacity/functional effectiveness of the different tiers of "Portable Holes" that the pricing didn't seem to match up with the actual usefulness against comparable, cheaper items.

For the time being, by all means let's go with whatever you feel is best to work with.  If it turns out we don't like it in the long run and want to tweak it later on, we can just say it was a particular case of Colmarr's mercantile habits and not a standard norm of economics.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:47, Tue 27 Feb.

Available Portable Holes
I'm happy adding another option that mirrors the usefulness of a Bag of Holding, even though the price for the full-scale Portable Hole, which is ordinarily the only one for purchase going by RAW and a Rare item, is much higher than that of a Bag of Holding, an Uncommon item. We can reconcile the lack of this option up until now by saying it is the one Colmarr personally uses, but is willing to part with in the absence of another deal.

So the 3′ x 8′ Portable Hole will be for sale at 2k gp.

Bartering
Considering it a bit more, my custom equation isn't actually any more complicated than any RAW rules, as there are no RAW rules. You would have to combine the Selling and Buying ruleset somehow, and they seem like oil and water due to the difference in how to calculate the prices of wares. The best course would likely be to handle the Selling of the Magic Item, then handle the Buying, and the player has to beg to the high powers the d10 lands low. In most cases the trade ends up unfavorable to the player, with the added downside of extreme swings. In the worst case scenario a Rare item the player wants to trade for another Rare item could only be 2,000 gp of the 10,000 gp required, and you are partly beholden to dice without modifiers.

I say we try my approach. To reiterate; set a DC then roll against it. On a fail, Mallory gets no discount and must provide items of value corresponding to the cost of the item she wants to trade for or make up for the difference with gp.

I'll make an IC post that gives the values of the other items Colmarr is interested in later today.
This message was last edited by the GM at 09:22, Wed 28 Feb.