|
Yes, it's not mandatory to make WIS a Cleric's highest stat - it just so happens to be true for a bunch of classes and is the safer option, but going off-script works if you know what you're doing.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Payndz posted:A character's highest ability score doesn't have to be the one most associated with their class, does it? I created a Tempest Cleric last night to test how the process works, with STR and DEX as her highest scores and WIS third simply because I like the idea of someone with a pissed-off thunder god on their side whose approach to dealing with evildoers isn't through spells but by smacking them really hard in the face with a big fuckoff hammer. (Basically my Skyrim character.) Isn't a cleric who doesn't use magic literally just a fighter though
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Isn't a cleric who doesn't use magic literally just a fighter though Besides, how can I win at D&D if I don't play a caster? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Isn't a cleric who doesn't use magic literally just a fighter though Doesn't != can't 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yes, it's not mandatory to make WIS a Cleric's highest stat - it just so happens to be true for a bunch of classes and is the safer option, but going off-script works if you know what you're doing. You can get away with a lot of spells that basically don't require saves, or to-hit rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
Is there still a spell to make clerics better fighters than fighters
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That sounds like something that belongs in grognards.txt, but anyway ... So you wouldn't have it so literally everyone you meet rolls insight or whatever, just if I don't act correctly or if the disguise isn't very good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:So you wouldn't have it so literally everyone you meet rolls insight or whatever, just if I don't act correctly or if the disguise isn't very good? Yes. Think of it as reverse passive Perception: a really good disguise will cause certain people to never ever notice you even on a 20, so they shouldn't even be rolling ... unless you do something that would give a circumstantial penalty to your Disguise which would then allow them to detect you on a high enough Insight roll. (try not to frame it in such mechanical terms though - trying to backsolve the actual numerical DC of a Deception check you'd need to make to make yourself 'undetectable' to a statted-up peasant, or to a statted-up noble, or to the target's statted-up spouse is bad form. At most it'd probably be in tiers of your Deception roll, although how many tiers there are and how high the tiers should be spaced depends on the specifics of the scenario) I'd also like to point out that "literally everyone you meet rolls Insight" would be an atrocious way to handle this - walk into a typical garden party and your cover would be blown within the first 30 seconds. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I'm concerned about. I mean the level 9 assassin thing literally says "no one will suspect you unless you act out of character" so that's pretty clear but it also costs money. I currently get +6 to deception though, probably +8 after I get more charisma and a better proficiency bonus. To I'm fairly confident I can make a good roll, especially if I get several attempts. What I'm not confident of is like meeting 6 guys who all roll their own checks and one of them rolls a natural 20 or something. Also what skill would you say is used for making a disguise? Deception? Or some sort of crafting skill?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
The actual act of making the disguise seems like it'd be Deception as the best fit Sleight of Hand, Arcana, History, Investigation, Religion, Insight are all possible skills you can try to try to dig up information to improve your disguise Stealth and Sleight of Hand to pull something off that's out of character without triggering an Insight check Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion and more Deception if you got spotted being not-yourself and are in danger of getting your cover blown I keep thinking about Mission Impossible 2 while writing these posts, because large parts of that movie is setting up a foolproof disguise, acting into the disguise, bluffing your way into maintaining the disguise when someone already suspects, and pulling double/triple-crosses with the disguises.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah that's what I'm concerned about. I mean the level 9 assassin thing literally says "no one will suspect you unless you act out of character" so that's pretty clear but it also costs money. This is exactly the thing that Passive Insight/Perception was created to solve. You make your check for the disguise, and assume that everyone else rolled a 10 when they encounter you. If your check result is enough to beat their passive checks, they won't notice your disguise. If people actively get suspicious and start looking around for infiltrators, that's the point where they start rolling and you start worrying about natural 20s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:So far the DM twice has let me roll for a persuasion check for something realistic (e.g. getting cheap rooms for the party as the noble they are all kow towing to is traveling with us) and I got like 20+ after modifiers just to be told "Nah he says no".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Rulings, not rules! It can easily be solved through the local application of your palm to their face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Whats the biggest bad I could throw at a party of the 5, (3lvl 2s and 1lvl 1) and still make it a cool thing to fight but not just a humanoid, something unique but not a TPK. Also, is there a good repository of neat traps and out of the box puzzles I could pull from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
ascendance posted:DMs who say no to loving everything is not a system problem. It is a system problem when the system itself doesn't give clear guidelines and the designers tout "rulings not rules" as a universal cure-all. This is a perfect example of rulings-not-rules in action, you don't get to just cherry pick all the examples of GMs making non-lovely rulings and decide that all the examples like this guy don't count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:It is a system problem when the system itself doesn't give clear guidelines and the designers tout "rulings not rules" as a universal cure-all. This is a perfect example of rulings-not-rules in action, you don't get to just cherry pick all the examples of GMs making non-lovely rulings and decide that all the examples like this guy don't count. Players clearly succeeded and rolled high on a skill check. DM says they fail anyway. How is this a system specific problem? Why couldn't this happen in any other game system? You are so enamored with blaming everything on 5e. Pull that head out of your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:It is a system problem when the system itself doesn't give clear guidelines and the designers tout "rulings not rules" as a universal cure-all. This is a perfect example of rulings-not-rules in action, you don't get to just cherry pick all the examples of GMs making non-lovely rulings and decide that all the examples like this guy don't count. Also you have very clear rules for certain things (damage, spells, etc) but not for "What you can reasonably expect to accomplish with skills". Its all a big mess anyway because skills still don't provide any narrative control to the player. quote:Players clearly succeeded and rolled high on a skill check. DM says they fail anyway. How is this a system specific problem? Why couldn't this happen in any other game system? You are so enamored with blaming everything on 5e. Pull that head out of your rear end. Calm down, bucko. There are no specific rules for what the player was attempting (getting a discount via persuasion). Hell, there is not even a "say yes, but" generic rules guideline for skills. The player rolled a high skill check. There are no rules for what that actually means with a lot of skills; the DM can set the DC ahead of time for a specific task, but "I talk to the guard. I rolled a 25 persuasion. Does he let me in to the castle?" - the rules say "The DM decides". There are certain suggestions, but its not explicitly "If you succeed, the NPC believes your bluff" or "The NPC is favorably disposed to you" or "You can narrate the NPC's reaction to your argument" etc. It just moves the response entirely to the DM's hands, who, in the rules, can just say "Nothing happens." - and be completely justified in the rules, because they tell the DM to decide. That is a 5E problem, because the game keeps telling the DM to decide and says to rule how you like it for your D&D, as opposed to providing clearer guidelines. This is across the board, from making monsters to adjudicating unexpected actions etc. In a perfect world the DM is cool and clever and just does it well. It doesn't always happen, and because the guidelines are explicitly written - designed - to be "its your ruling" - you are going to get lovely rulings. Its not like the DMG does a great job training a DM how to be cool and clever and amazing. Edit: Note that I think that "Its your ruling" can work fine - if there was clear and explicit guidance as to what TYPE and STYLE of rulings you should make. D&D 5E explicitly avoids this! D&D 4E had much clearer guidance on "saying yes" for example in the rules, and page 42 of the PHB (Actions the Rules Do Not Cover) was a great example of clear guidance on "what to do". Shame no one ever read it. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Also you have very clear rules for certain things (damage, spells, etc) but not for "What you can reasonably expect to accomplish with skills". Its all a big mess anyway because skills still don't provide any narrative control to the player. And ideally, people should be running games so that skills provide some measure of narrative control. But this is rarely explicitly laid out. And DMs should be responding to skill use by saying yes, and possibly providing some kind of complication. Like the cited example... wouldn't it be more fun if the players get a cheap room, but someone tries to burgle them in the middle of the night?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
ascendance posted:This is a huge gap in a lot of games that is not at all unique to D&D. I 100% agree with you. I just wish more games had that measure of narrative control written in and assumed on both sides. Its not a failing unique to 5E, but I personally wanted 5E to be better than any D&D before it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
How can you realistically detail that though? Let's take a guard who's under strict orders directly from his king who says 'let no one past you.' So the players walk up, roll a bunch of natural 20s on their social scores, and expect to be let through. But the guard doesn't per the DM's discretion. Should the DM have told the players before they attempted their interactions what the guard's orders were? Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
5th Edition PHB page 179quote:Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk. 4th Edition PHB page 183 quote:Diplomacy (Charisma) - You can influence others with your tact, subtlety, and social grace. Make a Diplomacy check to change opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron, to demonstrate proper etiquette and decorum, or to negotiate a deal in good faith. A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you (friendly or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC. Diplomacy is usually used in a skill challenge that requires a number of successes, but the DM might call for a Diplomacy check in other situations. 3.5 Edition page 71 quote:Diplomacy (CHA) - Use this skill to persuade the chamberlain to let you see the kind, to negotiate peace between feuding barbarian tribes, or to convince the ogre mages that have captured you that they should random you back to your friends instead of twisting your limbs off one by one. Diplomacy involves etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words. A skilled character knows the formal and informal rules of conduct, social expectations, proper forms of address, and so on. This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of yourself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:I 100% agree with you. I just wish more games had that measure of narrative control written in and assumed on both sides. Its not a failing unique to 5E, but I personally wanted 5E to be better than any D&D before it. mastershakeman posted:How can you realistically detail that though? Let's take a guard who's under strict orders directly from his king who says 'let no one past you.' So the players walk up, roll a bunch of natural 20s on their social scores, and expect to be let through. But the guard doesn't per the DM's discretion. Should the DM have told the players before they attempted their interactions what the guard's orders were? Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How can you realistically detail that though? Let's take a guard who's under strict orders directly from his king who says 'let no one past you.' So the players walk up, roll a bunch of natural 20s on their social scores, and expect to be let through. But the guard doesn't per the DM's discretion. Should the DM have told the players before they attempted their interactions what the guard's orders were? Of course not. Yeah, but there should be some mechanics available to the party for finding a plausible way to do approximately what they were trying to do here. If like "FACT: Guard is under specific orders" is a thing, then maybe let the PCs be aware of this due to passive perception along the lines of common sense. Hell, if the PCs are walking right up to him anyway, just have the guard say, "Sorry citizen, but under no circumstances whatsoever am I to let you past here" as they approach. So, they can still try to bribe the guard. They can still try to fool the guard into leaving his post. They are just barred from convincing the guard that it's a good idea to let them through because they're nice guys, and probably only get one shot at this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The actual act of making the disguise seems like it'd be Deception as the best fit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
That's why you should simply use magic instead of skills 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How can you realistically detail that though? Let's take a guard who's under strict orders directly from his king who says 'let no one past you.' So the players walk up, roll a bunch of natural 20s on their social scores, and expect to be let through. But the guard doesn't per the DM's discretion. Should the DM have told the players before they attempted their interactions what the guard's orders were? Of course not. The part you're omitting is what the players are describing between walking and rolling 20s on their dice. I always ask the players how they want to do the thing they're rolling for, and/or what they want to accomplish, because that either lets me make up something on the spot to allow what they want to happen, or gives me a reason to let them know something that'll let the players take a different approach. And the Third Way is for the player to describe what they want/what they're doing, then they roll high, then you leave it to them to fill the blanks of how it worked, instead of you DM'ing it. But either way the DM has to be willing to let the players win in the first place. If the DM wasn't ever going to let the innkeeper be convinced to give them a cheaper room, he should've just said so and not let a roll happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Its actually a straight up ability check. The rules aren't vague in this case more than its in the Equipment section.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Its actually a straight up ability check. The rules aren't vague in this case more than its in the Equipment section.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Its actually a straight up ability check. The rules aren't vague in this case more than its in the Equipment section. quote:Disguise Kit. This pouch of cosmetics, hair dye, and small props lets you create disguises that change your physical appearance. Proficiency with this kit lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to create a visual disguise. PHB Page 154 20 pages before you get to the Skills section  Why would they do this?! gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:PHB Page 154 20 pages before you get to the Skills section The rules rolled well on their stealth check.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How can you realistically detail that though? Let's take a guard who's under strict orders directly from his king who says 'let no one past you.' So the players walk up, roll a bunch of natural 20s on their social scores, and expect to be let through. But the guard doesn't per the DM's discretion. Should the DM have told the players before they attempted their interactions what the guard's orders were? Of course not. "No, you don't understand! I'm here on orders direct from the King. If you don't let my people through, it's your head. Do you think these stripes here are for show, private?" "This letter needs to get through, and without the king's seal that he received it, I'm going to lose my job. You've got a family, don't you? If you can't let us in, could you escort us, maybe?" "Lenny, you old so and so, how you been? I just need to pick up something my husband left in the break room, alright?" "Furniture delivery. Yeah, we were able to squeeze you in early. Boss's been work us like dogs, I don't mind saying. You want us to come in this way, or take it around back through the loading dock? Alright, sign here." It's not like there are no examples of people acting under strict orders failing to do so, or making an exception "just this one time".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I think that because so much is riding on the DM's deciding everything, many of them are worried about "breaking the game" by letting the PC's do things to upset their little world. You're already juggling plates, trying to assign a numerical difficulty to things that you probably have never done or seen done going off a list of DC's that are complete and utter nonsense. Ok, you're in a world where disabling a simple machine is harder than scaling a 50ft wall and swimming in a stormy ocean is as hard as picking a lock; how hard is it to screen butter for poison? Is it more difficult than running on a treadmill for 47 minutes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:"No, you don't understand! I'm here on orders direct from the King. If you don't let my people through, it's your head. Do you think these stripes here are for show, private?" These are all fine, but you could simply not roll dice at the end and see what happens too. I think the awkwardness comes from combining rp and dice and going well, the dm controlling the npc didn't buy my role play past him but he must bow to the dice roll! It's part of why social skills in d&d are inherently screwy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
What's the DC for catching a small object attached to your wrist by a cord? Got to be like, DC 40, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
DC = On a scale of ten to infinity, how badly do I want the players to fail and accomplish nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:That's why you should simply use magic instead of skills I'm fresh out of fetuses
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
moths posted:DC = On a scale of ten to infinity, how badly do I want the players to fail and accomplish nothing? This is why all RPGs should use the Powered by the Apocalypse system's success/partial success/fail forward system for rolls. Then setting a DC instead becomes, "On a scale of ten to infinity, how badly do I want to complicate things for the players?" I'm trying to find a way to translate the "partial success" part of that spectrum into d20 for use in my 13th Age game, actually. The way it works in Powered by the Apocalypse games, for anyone who's somehow unfamiliar, is that you roll 2d6+stat. On 10 or higher, it's an unqualified success; on a 6 or lower, it's a failure and will definitely cost you something or seriously complicate things; on a 7-9, it's a partial success, where you mostly get what you want, but it has some cost or difficult choice associated with it. That's all great when you don't have DCs and every roll has the same target numbers, but I'm wondering if it can be translated to something with DCs. Maybe setting "partial success" DCs a notch or so lower than the "full success" DC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think that because so much is riding on the DM's deciding everything, many of them are worried about "breaking the game" by letting the PC's do things to upset their little world. You're already juggling plates, trying to assign a numerical difficulty to things that you probably have never done or seen done going off a list of DC's that are complete and utter nonsense. Ok, you're in a world where disabling a simple machine is harder than scaling a 50ft wall and swimming in a stormy ocean is as hard as picking a lock; how hard is it to screen butter for poison? Is it more difficult than running on a treadmill for 47 minutes? Harrow posted:This is why all RPGs should use the Powered by the Apocalypse system's success/partial success/fail forward system for rolls. Then setting a DC instead becomes, "On a scale of ten to infinity, how badly do I want to complicate things for the players?" A big draw of PBTA and roll-under mechanics (either GURPS or percentile) to me was always having a "standard" DC to fall back on when you weren't sure how hard something was supposed to be. What I did my last game was to take a page from Robin D Laws and start from a DC of 10, increasing it by 1 whenever the party succeeded, and then decreasing it by 1 whenever they failed. Once I let go of the idea that this was supposed to be a "real" world where the DCs had to make sense, the idea of just dynamically adjusting the DCs to match what's supposed to be a rising action within a session just made too much sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
instead of just bashing 5E why don't we have a serious talk about fetuses as a material component, god this thread is just so anti for no reason
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Harrow posted:This is why all RPGs should use the Powered by the Apocalypse system's success/partial success/fail forward system for rolls. Then setting a DC instead becomes, "On a scale of ten to infinity, how badly do I want to complicate things for the players?" I would do something like, A failure of any sort doesn't block the path completely, but it does raise the stakes. Think about one of the only one of these that actually does have a common flow-chart in D&D: picking a lock. Fail to pick a lock, and your options are: leave (boring), smash down the door(loud), or Take 20 (time-consuming). The loud path means that any enemies in the next room will be ready and waiting for you. The time-consuming path means that the party risks having to protect the rogue from a random encounter in the middle of the lock-picking job... which probably alerts the next room anyway. Or, basically, the party can still get the jump on the next room, but they gamble on losing that and adding extra monsters to the encounter. This works if there were no monsters on the other side of the door, too- being loud definitely adds future monsters outside the room later, and taking time has a chance of just adding monsters right now. It's the same in social situations. If you fail to talk your way past the guard, the guard is now suspicious of/mad at you. You can no longer talk your way past him. However, you could keep pushing his buttons to hold his attention while the rest of the party sneaks in. Or, if you can't afford to split the party, you can seek alternate, more dangerous ways into the castle, such as scaling the walls or entering via the sewers. Rolling an outrageous success should still reflect outrageous success, though. If you roll like +10 DC trying to convince the guard that the king sent for you, that guard should offer to escort you to his chambers personally. deadly_pudding fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:42
|
|