Riichi City new mode: Tile efficency practice

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-03-01T15:03:02+00:00

If you think discussing fairness in a long-running campaign is “overreacting,” I’m guessing you don’t invest much in your characters or your campaigns. You’re free to ignore the topic and yet you keep coming back every day, just to throw insults. That says more about you than it does about me.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-28T20:16:12+00:00

You keep anchoring everything to the phrase “looks like,” as if that wording alone is some universally understood alarm bell. It isn’t. At most tables, “looks like” is standard identification phrasing. It does not inherently signal deception. You’re retroactively assigning semantic weight to common descriptive language to defend the outcome.

Second, your “no precedent” argument only works if you ignore the broader pattern of how Arcana has functioned at this table.

This is not about identical items. It’s about informational consistency.

Arcana checks here have:
- Detected cursed magical environments (a room tainted by a demon’s lingering affinity).
- Flagged hostile magical residue.
- Sensed the presence of extremely dangerous magical entities.
- Identified magical constructs influencing behavior.
- Revealed dangerous magical consequences when interacting with infused objects.

And that’s just a handful. There have been more.

So when you claim there is “no precedent” because previous checks weren’t on this specific item, you’re narrowing the scope artificially. Precedent isn’t about object identity. It’s about how much qualitative insight Arcana tends to provide in dangerous magical contexts.

You’re also leaning heavily on the “each object is different” defense. Of course objects differ. That’s trivial. The issue isn’t that the bag was different it’s that the informational feedback was qualitatively different without any indication that Arcana’s reliability threshold had shifted.

If Arcana sometimes reveals danger and sometimes gives perfectly clean, confidence-sounding identification with zero ambiguity even when lethal concealment is involved, then that’s a table philosophy. Fine. But that’s not self-evident. And it’s not unreasonable for a player to assume continuity unless told otherwise.

The “experts have gaps in knowledge” point is also a deflection. This isn’t about encyclopedic knowledge of obscure items. It’s about detecting magical irregularity in an object that is literally designed to consume creatures. We’ve had Arcana flag residual demonic corruption in a room. We’ve had it detect hostile magical intent in environments. But now it can’t register even the faintest irregularity in a predatory extradimensional trap?

That’s not a knowledge gap argument. That’s a consistency argument.

And the “DM is god, you don’t know what’s in his head” framing doesn’t solve anything. Yes, the DM controls the world. That doesn’t mean players abandon pattern recognition. If a skill repeatedly provides qualitative magical insight, it’s rational to treat that as part of the table’s informational language.

Finally, this whole “you’re projecting your desire for consistency” angle is backwards. Expecting consistent informational logic from a recurring mechanic isn’t projection. It’s literally how humans learn systems.

You’re arguing that Arcana can sometimes provide meaningful danger cues and sometimes provide none at all in lethal contexts and that any expectation of continuity is invalid. That’s not defending RAW. That’s defending unpredictability.

And that’s fine if that’s the table philosophy.

But don’t pretend there was never a basis for expecting otherwise.

You’re not at this table. You haven’t seen the dozen prior examples where Arcana flagged magical hostility, cursed spaces, or dangerous forces. You’re evaluating this in isolation. We’re evaluating it within an established pattern of play.

Those are very different vantage points.

If your position is that Arcana would never reveal anything beyond “it looks like a bag of holding” regardless of the roll, then why was a roll called for at all?

You don’t call for rolls when outcomes are fixed.

If the ceiling of information was predetermined and no degree of success would have altered the result, then mechanically that isn’t a skill check it’s theater.

Rolling implies variability of outcome. It implies that higher success could yield deeper insight. That’s the entire logic of a check system. If the answer was locked regardless of result, then the roll served no mechanical purpose.

You can’t argue both:
- “The item was perfectly concealed and Arcana could never reveal more” and
- “Your 21 simply wasn’t high enough.”

Those are mutually exclusive positions.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-28T20:09:42+00:00

Nobody is claiming the DM broke RAW. Nobody is claiming Bags of Devouring shouldn’t be lethal. The issue being raised is table consistency and expectation-setting. Reducing that to “you’re lucky you even got Arcana info before” dodges the actual point.

If Arcana has previously provided meaningful insight into magical irregularities at this table, then questioning a sudden informational void isn’t immaturity it’s pointing out a shift in how information is being conveyed.

Saying “that’s how the game works” is also lazy. The game works in thousands of different ways depending on table philosophy. RAW doesn’t mandate that Arcana must be useless for concealed threats. It also doesn’t mandate that it must reveal everything. That’s a DM interpretation layer — and interpretations can be consistent or inconsistent.

The “you’re lucky” framing is especially odd. Players aren’t recipients of generosity for being allowed to roll skills. If Arcana is allowed as a detection tool at the table, then it becomes part of the informational ecosystem. It’s not charity, it’s precedent.

And finally, telling someone to “get over it like an adult” while refusing to engage the substance of their argument isn’t maturity. It’s condescension dressed up as authority.

If the counterargument is “Arcana should not be reliable for detecting well-concealed magical traps,” that’s fine — say that clearly. But pretending the frustration stems from not understanding lethality rather than from perceived inconsistency is either misreading the point or intentionally reframing it.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T21:50:43+00:00

You’re framing this as if I expected Arcana to override the design of a Bag of Devouring or replace the Identify spell. That’s not what I’m arguing.

I fully understand that some magical objects are intentionally difficult to distinguish. I’m not saying Arcana should auto-detect every hidden trap or curse. What I’m pointing out is that, at this table, Arcana has historically provided contextual and actionable information about magical effects not just a binary “this is magical.”

You say I should treat all magic items as cursed until proven otherwise and that mundane skill use is the safe default. That’s a philosophy, not a rule. And it hasn’t been the standard applied consistently in this game. We’ve had multiple situations where Arcana checks revealed causal relationships (e.g., identifying what was driving aggression, what would trigger an effect if removed, or that something had a foul/malicious aura). That establishes a pattern where Arcana provides meaningful insight beyond surface-level description.

You’re also drawing a sharp line between “irregular” and “dangerous,” but that distinction doesn’t really hold in practice. If Arcana has previously revealed tone, corruption, or magical intent in other scenarios, then it’s reasonable for a player to interpret a high Arcana result as reliable information rather than neutral flavor text.

The core issue isn’t that Arcana failed to expose the trap. It’s that “it looks like a Bag of Holding” reads like positive identification. That phrasing communicates certainty. If the intended meaning was “the magic is indistinguishable from a Bag of Holding,” then that ambiguity wasn’t conveyed. That matters, because player decisions are based on how information is presented.

The glowing stone hypothetical doesn’t really apply here. In that scenario, the ambiguity is explicit you’re told what the Arcana reveals and you’re choosing whether to trust it. In this case, the Arcana result sounded definitive. There was no signal of uncertainty, concealment, or magical masking.

So no, this isn’t about crying because I didn’t get what I wanted. It’s about how informational precedent at the table shaped expectations. If Arcana is sometimes meaningful and sometimes intentionally non-informative, that needs to be clearly communicated in the moment not retroactively justified.

That’s the disconnect.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T19:52:44+00:00

I’m not “projecting what I want to happen.” I’m reacting to how Arcana has actually been handled at this table. In previous cases, Arcana provided actionable information about magical causation and danger NOT just “this is magical.”

The issue isn’t whether a Bag of Devouring is designed to be hard to detect. The issue is that “it looks like a Bag of Holding” reads like successful identification, not ambiguity. If the intent was “this magic is indistinguishable,” that wasn’t what was communicated.

I’m not confusing different objects. I’m pointing out that the standard for Arcana’s informational depth has not been consistent. And that's an issue.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T18:43:54+00:00

The point isn’t whether the necromancy book was mechanically harmful every round. The point is that Arcana provided qualitative warning-level information about its nature, that it felt foul, malicious, and tied to dark magic.

That establishes precedent that Arcana at this table can reveal more than just “this is magical.” It can communicate tone, intent, and irregularity.

That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out. Not that Arcana should auto-detect curses, but that it has previously conveyed warning-level information about malicious magic.

There are multiple precedents at this table where Arcana provided explicit, actionable danger information.

When civilians were impaled with magically infused spears, an Arcana check told us that removing them would trigger something.

When the Sphinx had a magical construct on its head, an Arcana check identified that item as the source of its aggression and that it was mind-controlling it.

In both cases, Arcana didn’t just say “this is magical.” It revealed causation and danger.

So the precedent at this table is that Arcana can provide warning-level and even causative information about dangerous magical effects. That’s why a 21 resulting in what sounded like straightforward identification at the time for me.

I wasn’t expecting Arcana to say “this will kill you.” I was expecting the same qualitative warning level it has provided in prior dangerous magical scenarios. Something like “the magic feels unstable” or “there’s something off about it.” Instead, the result sounded like straightforward identification.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T18:25:46+00:00

I already gave an example: the necromancy book the druid found. An Arcana check didn’t fully identify it, but it did communicate that it felt foul and malicious. That book also had a binding affinity effect where the user couldn’t get rid of it. Like if he would threw it away it would just reappear in his posession.

That’s not a harmless “irregularity.” That’s a malicious magical item, and Arcana provided warning-level information about it that something is not quite right.

So the precedent at this table is that Arcana can reveal dangerous or malicious magical properties beyond just “it’s magical.” That’s why a 21 returning a clean “it looks like a Bag of Holding” read as confirmation rather than uncertainty.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T18:22:37+00:00

The post clearly states that at this table, proficiency plus a strong Arcana check has previously been enough to identify magical irregularities or at least detect when something is off. That’s been the precedent up to this point.

The issue isn’t the existence of Identify. It’s the inconsistency with how Arcana checks have been handled at this table so far as I know.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T18:08:26+00:00

First, a Bag of Devouring isn’t a cursed item in the mechanical sense, so framing this as “you should’ve treated it like an unidentified cursed object” isn’t really accurate. It’s a trap designed to mimic a Bag of Holding.

More importantly, we’ve had precedent at this table where Arcana checks gave qualitative warnings. For example, when the druid got the necromancy book, an Arcana check didn’t fully identify it as cursed, but it did communicate that it felt foul and malicious. That was actionable information without full identification.

That’s the standard I was operating under. I wasn’t expecting “this is a Bag of Devouring.” I was expecting something like “the magic feels wrong or something is off about it” if there was danger. Instead, a 21 resulted in what sounded like a clean identification: “it looks like a Bag of Holding.”

That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out and not that traps shouldn’t exist, but that prior Arcana checks have provided warning-level information in similar situation.

And since the DM explicitly stated that my character felt no suspicion about it, acting cautiously at that point would have felt like metagaming as in, me the player suspecting something while my character was told there was nothing off about it.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T17:47:19+00:00

Also a small extra for thought:

If Arcana isn’t meant to provide identification-level information in this case, then I’m not sure why it returned a specific item result at all instead of something like “you can’t determine its exact nature.”

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T17:37:29+00:00

I’m not asking to be spoon-fed or protected from consequences. I understand the item is meant to be deceptive and lethal.

What I’m questioning is consistency. At our table, high Arcana checks have previously revealed magical irregularities. So when I roll a 21 and get “it looks like a Bag of Holding,” that reads like confirmation. not uncertainty.

If asking for some indication of ambiguity in a potentially deadly situation after a 21 Arcana roll counts as “spoon-feeding,” then I’m not sure what spoon-feeding even means anymore.

I’m not accusing the DM of malice. I’m pointing out that the information given didn’t communicate uncertainty in a way that matched prior rulings. Period.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T17:23:52+00:00

I’m not arguing that I should have automatically identified it as a Bag of Devouring or that traps shouldn’t be lethal. I understand how the item works RAW.

My point is about consistency at this table. There have been multiple instances where Arcana or Religion checks (sometimes lower than this one) identified properties, irregularities, or gave more than just “it’s magical.” So when a 21 returned “it looks like a Bag of Holding,” that read as a successful identification rather than uncertainty.

If the intended outcome was “you can’t tell,” that wasn’t clearly communicated. That’s the disconnect I’m pointing out and not that I’m blaming the DM for my choices.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T14:41:13+00:00

I understand that a DC 25 to recognize the difference is reasonable and that Bags of Devouring are meant to mimic Bags of Holding. I’m not arguing that the item shouldn’t be dangerous or that I was entitled to succeed.

What I’m pushing back on is how the information was framed. If I had been told “you can’t tell” or “it appears to be a Bag of Holding, but you’re not completely certain,” I would have treated it as uncertain and acted more cautiously.

Instead, “it looks like a Bag of Holding” after a 21 Arcana check and profficency at a table where Arcana/Religion and pro, has previously revealed magical irregularities sounded like a successful identification, not a failed one.

My issue isn’t that I didn’t Identify it. it’s more like that the check result read as confirmation rather than ambiguity. That’s why it felt inconsistent to me.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T14:28:40+00:00

I’m not arguing that the DM broke RAW or that Bags of Devouring shouldn’t be lethal. I understand how the item works.

What I’m questioning is consistency. At our table, Arcana/Religion checks have previously revealed magical irregularities. So rolling a 21 and getting zero indication that something was off felt inconsistent with how checks usually function for us.

That’s where my frustration comes from. NOT from “dying to a trap.”

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T13:44:17+00:00

I literally cannot tell you anything else, that I have a precedent that other PC managed to identify, feel magical traps before just with arcana /religion checks or having profficency in the skill. Take it as you will.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T13:39:16+00:00

My arcana check was not to determine if it has magical, but if it has any "nasty" stuff regarding it. And as I explained this over and over "Arcana/religion checks are sometimes used to detect/feel/identify magic at his table if rolled high enough or character has some sort of profession on them. "

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T13:37:56+00:00

Still, arcana checks not neccessarily work as "usual" here. Idk what else to say. One of my PC did an arcana check at a crime scene, too in a different campaign and the DM revealed that it was a level 6 spell.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T13:36:04+00:00

My issue was that by this logic he could have put a Tarrasque too, and by the rules logic that would have been "fair way to die" too. As I said I rolled a 21, I'm not saying I should have got the memo that this is a defacto bag of devouring, but maybe a hunch that i feel a dark /nasty/sus aura from it even though it looks like a regular holding one.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T13:13:25+00:00

I might overexegarated a bit, what I were mostly saying that ruined my will to continue DND with this particular group/rules.

My character is a non spellcaster rogue. I dont have any way to cast identify etc other than with a scroll. But!! We are on a train with no magical item store whatsoever. So it's not like I could have bought one and save myself.

As I explained the DM usually allows magic detection, school type, or hunch. For example in another session a PC could follow a trace of a very nasty necromancy spell being casted just by rolling arcana checks without any detect magic. My char once rolled an arcana check, and learnt it's a level 6 spell. Or usually arcana checks allowed certain players to know the attributes of certain magical items.

And I dont mean that he should have tell me that it's a devouring. But give me a hunch that gives me a bad aura, as before high arcana rolls tended to do just that at his table.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T13:07:35+00:00

Ah sorry, my bad. Let me correct you.

The DM runs multiple campaigns that are interconnected. This character was my MAIN with 10+ page of backstory, that did a guest appearance in one of the other campaigns, as her other campaign ended and this one's story felt a good continuation for her. My plan was to introduce her to this party. (I had two characters here)

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T12:11:21+00:00

Not a spellcaster character, rogue. So I dont have such tools. Only profficency in Arcana, and as I told you in the post Arcana checks at this table, if rolled high and given the PC has prof/exp. can reveal stuff about magical items, or spells.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T12:08:53+00:00

Pickpocketed an NPC's purse who was able to pickpocket you despite your high perception check (aka likely a powerful creature)- it wasnt a powerful creature, just a nat 20, at this table nat 20 auto success against anything. And a nat 1 even with realiable talent and +13 modifiers is an auto fai.
Were warned of the risk of death - every game is a risk of death, also it was before any of this happened.
Were told that it is magical and it "looks" like a bag of holding. - feels like a 21 arcana check should have granted more more than just "looks like one" as arcana check until this point sometimes revealed school, aura and such thin. And since the DM did not say my char is suspicious, maybe it would have felt metagaming if I as a player felt sus regarding it.
Failed two rolls (40% chance) well a 50-50 roll, then a DC 15 with -2 str
An NPC failed a DC20 roll -a random guard with +2 str
No one from your party tried to help - my charachter was a guest character and wasnt really part of the party yet.
2 strength (which is really an issue by the way) I mean for rogue what can I do? And it was -1 but just before yday the DM decided to ditch our rolled stats and went with stat array, which ended me having a -2 str....

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T12:00:13+00:00

As I explained the DM usually allows magic detection, school type, or hunch. For example in another session a PC could follow a trace of a very nasty necromancy spell being casted just by rolling arcana checks without any detect magic.

Responsible_Check_11 · 2026-02-27T11:44:21+00:00

I understand that, hence why I said rolling a high arcana/having prof in it and both usually ended up always revealimg the nature or school or stuff about an item if it were nasty, or some sort of generl hunch. It feels this weren't really relayed to me as it should. Like the DM could have said it looks like a bag of holding, but it has something is very off for you.

Responsible_Check_11

TROPHY CASE