|
Hiding in combat has always been basically DM fiat (except in 4th), but because they weirded flanking, people are just now starting to notice that in 5th.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
"I want to make a Rogue who is also a con man, and he doesn't use magic" Okay, so you specifically pick the Rogue class, and then also pick the Charlatan background. Take Persuasion as one of your Expertise skills. When you hit level 3 and need to select your Archetype, choose the Assassin so you can disguise yourself as other people even better. If you're playing with feats, get the Actor feat so you have Advantage on Deception and Performance checks to try and impersonate other people. I think that's about it. Everything else is how you play the character. Refer to the details of the Charlatan background for RPing ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"I want to make a Rogue who is also a con man, and he doesn't use magic" Or you could be a valour bard and just choose to not cast or memorize spells, have better weapons and armor, choose disguise, persuasion, deception etc as expertise, and also get bardic inspiration die to your skill checks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Boston Globe just had a piece on how great 5e is and how it saved DnD from 4e.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Best way I troll my players. "Ok, make a perception check." they roll a 3, "Everything's fine, keep going?" when there was nothing to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:You loving spergs. He doesn't care about what you think is better than a rogue.  got anything to contribute about rogues in D&D or D&D next or did you just come in here to take a poo poo and tell us that you were a big boy? just because its got the name 'rogue' doesn't mean it lets you mechanically do the kinds of things that we associate with rogues; the label on the box is a misleading. If you just want to roleplay the class label doesn't matter, so I focus on mechanics in a system first and then just roleplay the thing I want to be second. 30.5 Days posted:Hiding in combat has always been basically DM fiat (except in 4th), but because they weirded flanking, people are just now starting to notice that in 5th. and 4E's rules of hidden club were strange and arcane. still the best stealth-in-combat rules of any D&D so far Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:If you just want to roleplay the class label doesn't matter, so I focus on mechanics in a system first and then just roleplay the thing I want to be second. This. When someone says I want to play a con-artist rogue, what are some tips?, I assume they mean the character concept. I don't assume they're asking what is the best way to write 'Rogue' on my character sheet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
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 stealth is a skill. And taking 20 is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
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. If they'd spent five minutes reading up on why previous editions' versions of dragonmarks were designed the way they were, they'd have seen why keying dragonmarks to both specific ability scores and specific races was a bad idea. Oh wait, I forgot, there were no design lessons to be learned from Eberron 4e because 4e never happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Oh wait, I forgot, there were no design lessons to be learned from Eberron 4e because 4e never happened. At last, our long national nightmare is over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
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. Perhaps Dungeons and Dragons is not the game for you. Have you tried Dungeon World or 13th Age?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
So what you're saying is in 5.0 everyone must be a magic user? I find that somewhat suspect. Also, not particularly helpful seeing as we have a group already assembled for this game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
God that Artificer they released today is the worst loving thing I've seen in a long time. Anyone else notice that the 14th level Artificer feature says that you have to "rest" for a month after using it? I'm pretty sure that "rest" in this edition so far has meant no adventuring. So, neat, I can make a Bag of Holding 13 days quicker than normal! Too bad I have to hang out at home and whatever for 30 days afterwards. (Or you could just use the crafting rules as is, and in almost the same amount of time craft two uncommon items and not have to sit out while your buddies get to play murder hobo without you.) Also  at Dragonmarks being tied to INT/WIS/CHA .I can't decide if Action Points make Bards really really broken because you can stack two dice on a roll, or obsolete because everyone now has action-less Inspiration Dice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what you're saying is in 5.0 everyone must be a magic user? I find that somewhat suspect. You dont have to be but you may find it difficult being able to do what you want if your limited to a martial characters skillset. A lot of the rules make some strange twists and turns and don't interact with other mechanics properly. For example a bard, just by being a bard, is likely to be much better at grappling and out muscling people than a big hulking fighter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what you're saying is in 5.0 everyone must be a magic user? I find that somewhat suspect. You don't have to be, but they're better at everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Oh man, I hope this ends in realtalk about how rangers are better bow fighters than fighters can ever hope to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Victorkm posted:Or you could be a valour bard and just choose to not cast or memorize spells, have better weapons and armor, choose disguise, persuasion, deception etc as expertise, and also get bardic inspiration die to your skill checks. Apart from the fact the assassin skills let you literally create persona and identities that fool everyone unless you do anything obvious. The assassin skills are actually pretty cool for anyone wanting to play a con man type role, which is what I'm currently doing with a rogue. Realistically what is the huge difference? Bards get spells but I don't want a character with spells, and I like the assassin disguise poo poo, and in combat they can ultimately still just go "I attack the thing" and that's about it. Even if a bard can use medium armour, there's not even a huge advantage there. The best light armour you can get is 12+dex whereas the best medium are is 14+dex(max 2) without a disadvantage to stealth. If you've got a +3 dex bonus you're comparing AC 15 to AC 16. As for skills you'll want expertise with persuade, deceive, disguise kit, forgery kit, stealth and maybe something else which you can do as a rogue whereas as a bard you only get 2 skills at level 3 and 4 at level 10. Whereas a rogue assassin at level 10 has 6 of those skills plus the cool assassin disguise thing. There are reasons to play a conman as a bard, there's also reasons to play it as a rogue. It may not be a min max thing to play a rogue and be a conman or whatever but I think just dismissing the entire thing is daft. I don't get why some people seem offended at the idea that if someone says: "Hey, I want to be an X that does Y, how can I do that" You should respond with: "Well if you really want to do that you do A, but you may have more luck doing B" Instead of "Lol I remember when I though you should do A, A is so terrible, you should only do B. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and bad".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what you're saying is in 5.0 everyone must be a magic user? I find that somewhat suspect. Well what does "must" mean? If your goal is to play the class entitled "Rogue" or otherwise play a non-magic-using class, then you must NOT be a magic user. If your goal is to be the most effective conman possible, yes, you must be a magic user. I was being hyperbolic earlier when I said the rogue had no mechanical support for being a conman, but the support that does exist was already recommended to you and you said it was unhelpful, so v  v
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what you're saying is in 5.0 everyone must be a magic user? I find that somewhat suspect. There have already been suggestions of what you can/need to do per your conditions. If it doesn't seem like there's a lot of choice beyond class and archetype, that's because there isn't
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:You don't have to be, but they're better at everything. Pretty much. Also everything the rogue can do, like disguises or hiding, is duplicated with spells, except your average DM will nod their head approvingly at a spell but come down hard on use of skills. In this thread, multiple players have complained about, or DM-goons have asked advice on how to handle, the following: Hiding in combat Using persuade to get past guards How perception, investigation, and trap detection works How to use disguise kits/disguises Each interaction with these rules elements has been along the lines of "The rules are unclear so I rolled a die and then my DM told me no." Hiding - invisibility spells Persuade - Charm spells Traps/Detection - Owl familiar is a tiny radar array with its 18 passive perception. Find Traps the spell exists. Disguise Kits/Disguises - Alter Self / Polymorph line of spells Spells are explicitly written as to what they do. Skills are a constant game of DM-may-I. I think you can play the skill dude or dudette; but before you sit down for the campaign go over what your skills do and do not let you do, and the kind of DCs the DM wants. Get the DM to commit to this in writing so they understand that you expect to be able to contribute as much as a magic user would. quote:"Lol I remember when I though you should do A, A is so terrible, you should only do B. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and bad". which was said by literally no one. D&D Next has serious issues with character agency because spells let you do X but skills require "DM's Call." I've seen 4 different DMs, in play, handle skills 6 different ways (two changed how they did it after a few sessions). If your concept is skilldude you have to really explicitly get buy in on what skilldude can and cannot do. The scope of what skills let you do is going to vary dramatically from one DM to another. Spells do not have this problem. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Well what does "must" mean? If your goal is to play the class entitled "Rogue" or otherwise play a non-magic-using class, then you must NOT be a magic user. If your goal is to be the most effective conman possible, yes, you must be a magic user. I was being hyperbolic earlier when I said the rogue had no mechanical support for being a conman, but the support that does exist was already recommended to you and you said it was unhelpful, so v There is a ton of mechanical support for being a conman though, like a surprising amount: Firstly, there are specifically disguise and forgery kits which you can skill you character to be proficient in which the PHB even lists the sort of materials you have in there in case you're stuck for ideas of how to use it. A rogue gets three expertise skills at level 1, and you can easily pick persuasion (convincing people to do things), deceive (lying to people), and insight (telling when people are lying to you) to have a character who is really switched on with people. The charlatan background gives you a disguise kit and you're proficient with it as well as forgery kits (you'll have to buy one of those though). You also know Thieves Cant as standard, which is a way of communicating with other thieves during normal conversation secretly without anyone knowing the wiser. You could easily have a co-conspirator in some sort of con and talk to them in thieves cant whereas everyone else thinks you're talking about something like the weather. At level 9 if you pick the assassin archetype for 25GP and a week's worth of your time you can create an identity and accompanying paperwork which is literally believed by everyone unless you do something obvious. At level 11 whenever you make an ability check that uses your proficiency bonus you can treat any rolls of 9 or lower as a 10. So if you are an expert in deception, your proficiency bonus is +4, which is doubled, plus say +3 charisma bonus. It means the lowest you can roll to lie to someone is loving 21 which is a "hard" test. There's a ton of cool stuff you can do by the time you get to level 11, and you can even start being kick rear end at it at level 1 as a rogue thanks to the expert skills and the charlatan background. Yeah a wizard can magic people's minds and it may even be more efficient, but it's not true to say the mechanics aren't there for a rogue to do it. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Pretty much. Also everything the rogue can do, like disguises or hiding, is duplicated with spells, except your average DM will nod their head approvingly at a spell but come down hard on use of skills. Yeah I will agree with this though, but I think that's a mixture of DM problems and lovely written rules. If you have a DM who says "right, here is how stealth is going to work, as long as you follow these rules we're talking about now you can use it however you like" then that's cool, if you have a DM who is fussy about some stuff it's easier to go "Well I cast the invisibility spell, I rolled X which means it works, I am now invisible. It says so in the rules".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:There is a ton of mechanical support for being a conman though, like a surprising amount: Aside from the fact that "pick up an expertise and choose assassin" was one of the very first things said, your ability to be a real deal conman picks up at level 9, which you will never ever play, and a warlock has that ability at level 1. It's not like a min/max thing it's the fact that if you want to play a character like X you're rolling the dice if you pick a rogue, betting on the length of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah I will agree with this though, but I think that's a mixture of DM problems and lovely written rules. If you have a DM who says "right, here is how stealth is going to work, as long as you follow these rules we're talking about now you can use it however you like" then that's cool, if you have a DM who is fussy about some stuff it's easier to go "Well I cast the invisibility spell, I rolled X which means it works, I am now invisible. It says so in the rules". There's no rolling involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Even if you want to play someone who's not a magic user, I think that multiclassing into warlock to pick up the disguise self cantrip is the best advice you're going to get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah I will agree with this though, but I think that's a mixture of DM problems and lovely written rules. If you have a DM who says "right, here is how stealth is going to work, as long as you follow these rules we're talking about now you can use it however you like" then that's cool, if you have a DM who is fussy about some stuff it's easier to go "Well I cast the invisibility spell, I rolled X which means it works, I am now invisible. It says so in the rules". I agree about the DM fussyness; if not for the fact that there was literally a dude in this thread complaining about how his DM was loving his class feature over on the disguise thing, I'd even agree that the disguise feature is clearly written as to how it works. Some people just can't get over non-magical poo poo being convincing and/or possible. See: the entirety of the Pathfinder design team. I go out of my way to make poo poo clear when I run as to what I let skills do (a whole lot) so that players use them in cool ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
The funny part about it is it's the one time they didn't say "as the spell 'disguise self'" and that dude's DM probably would have gone with it if they'd said that. It turns out that "as the spell" is a triumph of natural language.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what you're saying is in 5.0 everyone must be a magic user? I find that somewhat suspect. Magic is stronger and more versatile than nonmagic. That's just the name of the game. Groups do not need a rogue, but they can use a party face, and both bards and rogues fill that spot nicely. It'd be trivial to swap your character concept over to a bard, as they're both sneaky con-artist types, and refluff the magic as a collection of sneaky tricks that they've learned over time. Just because the book tells you that all classes are equal doesn't mean that it's the case. Rogues are kinda awful in a lot of ways, and bards are just flat-out better at filling the role you're looking to fill. It'll work, and you can play a rogue, but they're not the best tool for the job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
It actually doesn't say all classes are equal, there's a part in the PHB foreword where they say you'll be hosed if you don't have spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:It actually doesn't say all classes are equal, there's a part in the PHB foreword where they say you'll be hosed if you don't have spells. I read this and thought "nah, no way Mearls was that obvious". So I looked in the PHB. PHB, page 8 posted:For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold. 
Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
There's a huge difference between recognizing a party needs casters and saying everyone had to be one. Our party already has a warlock, a sorcerer and a cleric. As for the rest, I suppose I should have specified skills, weapons, feats etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
5e suffers from the same problem 3e does: in any situation where there is a magical solution and a non-magical solution, the magical solution will always be better. Yes, you can play a non-magical rogue. Yes, the magical sneaky face character will be better then you at most rogue-ish things. If you're ok with that, then what's the complaint? If you're not ok with that, then don't shoot the messenger. Either you are totally ok with "magic is better" or you are not. If you are ok with it, then you should if anything be nodding and agreeing with the people here. If you are not ok with it, being mad at people who point it out does nothing to help you. Red Hood posted:God that Artificer they released today is the worst loving thing I've seen in a long time. Anyone else notice that the 14th level Artificer feature says that you have to "rest" for a month after using it? I'm pretty sure that "rest" in this edition so far has meant no adventuring. So, neat, I can make a Bag of Holding 13 days quicker than normal! Too bad I have to hang out at home and whatever for 30 days afterwards. (Or you could just use the crafting rules as is, and in almost the same amount of time craft two uncommon items and not have to sit out while your buddies get to play murder hobo without you.) I actually missed this, which makes the already terrible Artificer even more lazy and hilarious. Nobody bothered to check to see how it worked alongside the pre-existing rules. And that's their monthly article. Something that could've been shat out overnight with just as little care to how it fit the mechanics and NO care at all to how it fit the fluff. This is the laziest loving game ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There's a huge difference between recognizing a party needs casters and saying everyone had to be one. Our party already has a warlock, a sorcerer and a cleric. You don't have to be a caster. Just pick Rogue and take Charlatan as your background and Assassin as your archetype and that does the job you want it to do. You won't be as effective as a well specced bard or a rogue/warlock multiclass, but if you don't want to be a caster then that's how I'd do it. You don't have to be a caster. e: Take the "actor" feat if you're playing with feats. That looks good for a con-man. e2: You seriously don't have to be a caster. You don't even have to listen to anyone telling you that a caster will be more effective than a non-caster at the role you want to play. But if you're looking for an in-depth discussion of "how to build a non-caster conman rogue", I don't think you're going to get more than "take this class/background(+skills)/archetype/(optionally feat)", because you're writing off most of the options when you say "I don't want to use spells". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
50% of the first monthly update adds options for wizards. Oh man, I am so surprised. It's not like a full third of the book I have is dedicated to casters already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
It's not a competitive game - you can rogue it up just fine. The only concern is your magic allies stealing the show due to the way the game is balanced. Rogue>Assassin is what you want to RP, a scoundrel who gets by on his own ability, go for it. Hell, you could even grumble about the idiots who take short cuts, you're a true master of the craft. A good DM could even work with this, nullify magical means(Anti-Magic Checkpoints or such) where mundane skill would win out. Character Optimization, which a lot of people like to do, is weird one. I was looking at the Magical Acolyte feat for my battlemaster fighter since I thought it'd be useful to cast Bless for the daily tough fight. I then looked at what would happen if I just straight up went War Cleric from Level 6 on - it'd be loads better with 15 levels of that than 15 levels of fighter, even with a 13 Wisdom score. I'd be load more versatile, do more damage consistently(+10 from channel divinity is a guaranteed hit with the Great Weapon Master bonus). It's straight up silly that a full caster is better at everything a Fighter does - doing melee damage, tanking damage, battlefield control - but that's just how the game is balanced. I like the base of the game really, and because I got a game design bug, I already have like 10 pages of a word document focused on balancing the game, trying to make it fair for mundane characters. I know there's been a thought of 'just play something else', but I started drat it, and there's some sunk cost fallacy going on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
So does anything stop a changeling wizard from immediately taking the barbarian's form and gaining the best of both worlds stat-wise? Reminder that Keith Baker made an artificer overnight, months ago, and it's still more detailed and more fitting then this piece of poo poo that's meant to be the big article of the month. Also doesn't the potion thing completely remove the concentration part of buffs? Did they literally break their own "no getting around concentration" rule directly after making it? ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:So does anything stop a changeling wizard from immediately taking the barbarian's form and gaining the best of both worlds stat-wise? The DM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
So, no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:So, no. Serious answer, unless "polymorph" is defined somewhere, "up to the dm" is probably it. The trait doesn't say "as the Polymorph spell" as I think was pointed out so I have no idea what a RAW interpretation would be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:((Stuff about potions)) Dungeon Master's Guide, Chapter 7, page 141 posted:Activating an Item > Spells: So, unless I'm missing something in the Artificer document, it's the only thing that they got right. And it still feels like they made the wrong decision somehow. Red Hood fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:37
|
|