|
You can always just say if they only just failed by like 2/3 or something then they know they wont be successful in sneaking up on someone, but if they roll really poo poo they are like "Heh, this dude isn't going to know what hits him" and then gets donkey punched as the guy knew he was there.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Not really. As far as I can tell the hide rules absolutely let you hide mid combat. If y'all are talking about ambush/surprise that's a different thing, but you can pretty plainly hide by following the Hiding rules on pg 177 PHB. The answer is of course, ask your DM (if the bad man can still see you.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So are you ok with the rogue knowing he isn't hidden in non combat situations too? That dramatically changes how the character would be played. Generally, if someone fails to be hidden in a non-combat situation, they'll know about it immediately, yes. E: also, whaaaat how the gently caress are warforged even remotely balanced with something like Shifters? More to the point, how are the other sorts of shifter even close to balanced with longtooth and razorclaw. It's almost like whoever wrote this was a lovely writer. Oh, wait, Mearls. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Hey. I'm pretty familiar w. 3.5, but starting.g a 5.0 campaign. Tips on builds for a shabby rogue with a con artist character concept loosely based on the gentlemen bastards series? You're probably better off as a Warlock honestly since they can disguise self as a cantrip, and Feylocks get goodies like Greater Invisibility. There's not much build flexibility so if you go the Rogue route you pmuch pick 1 of the 3 archetypes at level 3 and that's it. Elendil004 posted:Changelings seem so broken. Eh, Warlocks still do it better with disguise self. ocrumsprug posted:The answer is of course, ask your DM (if the bad man can still see you.) Yeah I wouldn't even bother with a hide-centric character without access to Greater Invisibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:So are you ok with the rogue knowing he isn't hidden in non combat situations too? That dramatically changes how the character would be played. Yeah, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
I'd rather not use magic. I've done the let's try to break the game thing. This time I'd rather focus on character and story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'd rather not use magic. I've done the let's try to break the game thing. This time I'd rather focus on character and story. It's not so much game-breaking as it is Just Plain Better than anything the Rogue can do. Idk why you wouldn't be able to focus on character & story as a magic-using class but whatever floats your boat I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:It's not so much game-breaking as it is Just Plain Better than anything the Rogue can do. Idk why you wouldn't be able to focus on character & story as a magic-using class but whatever floats your boat I guess. Because "being magical" isn't part of the character I'm making.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Yeah, of course. For stealth, sometimes I'll make the roll for the player and tell them the result narratively. In 99% of cases this is as simple as "you're confident your steps and the cover around will conceal you as you <do the thing>." However, it does leave me the option in unusual circumstances to have the stealther get caught unawares by an enemy. I do similar things with language translation etc. It's not for everybody, and I talk to the players during session one about how I prefer to run it and if the party outvotes me, that's fine too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
This kinda confirms there won't be any Eberron material for 5e, incidentally.Gharbad the Weak posted:Dragonmarks are tied to mental stats, so they're most useful to classes like the Wizard, Cleric and Druid and least useful to classes like the Rogue or the Fighter. This is really great, because the whole point of Dragonmarks is that it gave non-spellcasters the ability to replicate spells en masse. 5e! Also, for Eberron, the setting built explicitly around there being large amounts of low level items and giving both PCs and NPCs greater ease in making magical items, there's no way to make permanent magical items! 5e! Also for dragonmarks, Mark of Storm apparently can't fulfill it's main purpose. And you can't even get one until level 4! 5e! Also, they removed everything artificers had that wasn't spellcasting, even though more then half the time artificers were wading into combat. This loving edition! Don't forget the changelings, who can now only change shape into people they've seen! On the subject of balance I'm glad Shifters have only one +1 to two stats, but hey, for a full minute once per day, they can upgrade it to a second +1! You took Wildhunt so you'd be a master hunter and tracker? Hope your prey is only a minute away! These rules tell me two things: Mike Mearls is the laziest designer alive, and he has no loving idea what Eberron even is. I wonder if all those people who screamed about FR being killed in 4e will do the same for Eberron now...? ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Also, for Eberron, the setting built explicitly around there being large amounts of low level items and giving both PCs and NPCs greater ease in making magical items, there's no way to make permanent magical items! 5e! The Master Artificer thing lets you make one thing a month from tables A and B. I assume that's the less fancy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because "being magical" isn't part of the character I'm making. Generic Octopus posted:pick 1 of the 3 archetypes at level 3 and that's it. On the bright side, it'll be pretty hard to screw up if you just pick the one that looks like what you wanted to do anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
goatface posted:The Master Artificer thing lets you make one thing a month from tables A and B. I assume that's the less fancy stuff. Cool, artificers get the class and setting defining ability at level 14.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because "being magical" isn't part of the character I'm making. Just sayin', it's probably easier/better to reflavor the handful of spells you'd get as a Warlock and be able to do the cool con-artisty things from level 1 than having to wait til levels 9 & 13 as an Assassin Rogue to be able to do almost the same thing. ProfessorCirno posted:Also, for Eberron, the setting built explicitly around there being large amounts of low level items and giving both PCs and NPCs greater ease in making magical items, there's no way to make permanent magical items! 5e! Hey now, e: beat
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Don't those tables go up to like, F? Are they just going to be churning out a +1 weapon every month so they can save up to pay one of the dudes who toil away for years to make +3 Staff of Piss Wizardry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Yeah, of course. Then for any non-time sensitive stealthing, why even have it be a skill to roll against? You can just reroll until you pass the stealth check then do whatever it is you're doing. Easier to just say 'ok I'm sneaking around' and your declaration makes it true. I guess there's enough time sensitive things that this isn't a big deal but I'm pretty surprised by that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Hold up. If Changelings can polymorph at will, does that give them infinite HP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
So your advice on how to play a rogue is don't play a rogue. .
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Then for any non-time sensitive stealthing, why even have it be a skill to roll against? You can just reroll until you pass the stealth check then do whatever it is you're doing. Easier to just say 'ok I'm sneaking around' and your declaration makes it true. That's pmuch what taking 10 is, or Passive Checks I guess 5e calls them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So your advice on how to play a rogue is don't play a rogue. . Maybe take like 2 levels of it for Expertise and Cunning Action, but otherwise, yes. They're kinda bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:On the subject of balance I'm glad Shifters have only one +1 to two stats, but hey, for a full minute once per day, they can upgrade it to a second +1! You took Wildhunt so you'd be a master hunter and tracker? Hope your prey is only a minute away! I'm pretty sure the second +1 is contingent on what type of shifter you are, not on actually being shifted at the time, but it's not really written that clearly. mastershakeman posted:Then for any non-time sensitive stealthing, why even have it be a skill to roll against? You can just reroll until you pass the stealth check then do whatever it is you're doing. Easier to just say 'ok I'm sneaking around' and your declaration makes it true. Because usually, not be hidden has an immediate consequence (someone sees you, what do you do?), and you can't try to hide when there's nothing to hide FROM (well done, you hid perfectly in an empty room, now you need to stay hidden when you actually get where you're going which is a new check). If what you're doing is trying to set an ambush (or hide in an empty room and stay there whilst someone else arrives), and you have all the time in the world, sure, take 20, you get your surprise round/see what you want to. But the same is true of most skills, stealth isn't an exception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Maybe take like 2 levels of it for Expertise and Cunning Action, but otherwise, yes. They're kinda bad. That's not particularly helpful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not particularly helpful. You want to be a Rogue because they sneak around and have crime-doing skills and shank people, right? Other classes are better at all of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not particularly helpful. Pick Assassin at 3. That's all the in-class advice there is to give.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not particularly helpful. Welcome to the problems with class based systems! To be more precise, coming into a class based system with a general concept or inspiration ends up being more trying to fit the square peg of what you want into the round hole of what is actually possible. Sometimes, if the idea is broad or general enough, it can fit the prescribed molds available for characters, but ultimately, there are only so many options available. D&D actually pushes characters into even more prescribed molds given that their capabilities are generally set in stone. However, some of these molds are far more flexible and all encompassing in others because Magic can fill in the gaps created by trying to stretch one class's abilities into another.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
There is no build advice to give. There are no builds. Rogue, normal non-magic guy, is basically kind of crap compared to the other options that do the same things. Make a rogue. Pick a race you like. Put your stats in DEX and CHA. Pick a weapon you like. Pick a background you like (criminal? con artist?). Pick skills you like. Done. At level 3 choose Assassin path. You are not going to be any better or worse than any other rogue. Bard and Warlock are off the table because they use magic so there really is no advice to give. Both of those classes are better at being a con-man btw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Hold up. If Changelings can polymorph at will, does that give them infinite HP? Reads like it. It's slightly hobbled by restricting it to humanoids (which is a relatively small number of things) of your size. They already have Doppelgangers, who have shapechanger: quote:Shapechanger. The doppelganger can use its action to but they've decided to write something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:There is no build advice to give. There are no builds. It really is 3.pf Essentials.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
moths posted:It really is 3.pf Essentials. I have to say the huge and complete lack of options and choices, compared to previous D&Ds, certainly makes building a character faster. How come no one is vigorously complaining that 5E is dumbed down D&D for WoW babbies though? Again, but gently caress me if Paizo's marketing campaign wasn't the slickest poo poo since butter on bread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Wait, so... Changeling can polymorph into people. So what's "polymorph"? I would assume that it works as per the spell with the same name, yes? No other definition I could fine. Now, that spell has some limitations on the form but the specific beats the general, and so the Changeling can become a humanoid (only) and its gear doesn't change with it. Great. Now. The new shape can't speak or perform any action which requires hands. Because that's what the spell says. But it also says they gain all stats of the new shape, which would presumably include the ability to speak. Specific beats general, again. If they polymorph into a spellcaster, can they now cast their spells as well? The wording of the spell implies that they can, since the only reason why the Polymorph spell says they can't is due to physiological limitations which a copied humanoid shape wouldn't have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Wait, so... Changeling can polymorph into people. DM's call.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Presumably, Mearls assumed that at some point they had defined some kind of polymorph keyword to define how shapeshifting effects worked. Shame they haven't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:DM's call. I am killing you with my mind right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Polymorph (the spell) is explicitly into a beast (i.e. an animal), you can't use your hands or speak because you are now a dog. Polymorphing into a person (and gaining their mental stats) would presumably allow you to be a caster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
goatface posted:Polymorph (the spell) is explicitly into a beast (i.e. an animal), you can't use your hands or speak because you are now a dog. That's up to your DM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:There is no build advice to give. There are no builds. Rogue, normal non-magic guy, is basically kind of crap compared to the other options that do the same things. You loving spergs. He doesn't care about what you think is better than a rogue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:You loving spergs. He doesn't care about what you think is better than a rogue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:You loving spergs. He doesn't care about what you think is better than a rogue. Okay, and? She was told all the decisions to make for putting together a character of that class. She was also told how to make a character of the archetype that she wants in a way that would actually work. There is no mechanical support for rogues as con men in 5th edition aside from all the same skills everyone has access to. That is the answer to the question that was asked. If you have an alternate answer, offer it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Not really. As far as I can tell the hide rules absolutely let you hide mid combat. If y'all are talking about ambush/surprise that's a different thing, but you can pretty plainly hide by following the Hiding rules on pg 177 PHB. What I get from the sidebar on 177 describing hiding is that it is up to the DM to let you hide in combat: quote:You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you So yeah, if there are tons of overturned tables for you to dart behind while your fighter turns it away from you (also you just wasted at least 1 action setting up for this??? I guess.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Victorkm posted:What I get from the sidebar on 177 describing hiding is that it is up to the DM to let you hide in combat You can turn invisible and then it's not up to the dm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:09
|
|