|
gtrmp posted: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. Yeah. Key them to races for NPCs as a setting element, let PCs do whatever the gently caress they want.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You don't have to be a caster. NameHurtBrain posted: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. how about if the non-casters got, like, explicit powers that had clearly defined mechanical effects on-par with spells. and maybe there could be a Tome that contains these techniques. a tome that describe how to fight, a tome that describes how to battle. A tome of battle if you will. seriously these problems existed and were fixed nearly a decade ago. Tome of Battle was published in 2006. D&D Next is a literal 14 year step backwards in major areas of game design. Conversationally, that means that the average 30 year old D&D player would be stepping back to the D&D they played when they were 16. which is why, as lazy as next feels, i also feel that it is entirely deliberately lazy. Laphroaig fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:how about if the non-casters got, like, explicit powers that had clearly defined mechanical effects on-par with spells. and maybe there could be a Tome that contains these techniques. a tome that describe how to fight, a tome that describes how to battle. A tome of battle if you will. Sounds boring. Now, if it were some sort of Tome Of The Animes, I could see people buying it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted: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. Play something else or make your own game. Seriously, it's a lot easier than fixing 5e.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Play something else or make your own game. even if you never get a working document, you will dare to dream of a game that you actually like. you'll identify what game elements you and your group of friends you play with care about. once you know those elements, you can emphasis them in any game you play. its a worthwhile exercise to just draft up a wishlist of what your perfect game would be like. Hell, you might even find impossible contradictions and then have to make compromises. in any case it will be closer to "The D&D thats right for you" than Next will ever be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
My primary problem is my game group isn't as nerdy as me and tends to be averse to other systems that don't have D&D on it. drat brand recognition - it's generally fueled me to fix 5E on the front that it'd be easier to get them to play it when I take over DMing. Also I'm totally doing the weaboo fightan magic. Seriously tempted to throw Iron Heart Surge on the 'maneuver' list I'm building, even if it thematically doesn't fit the rest. Also only I would get the joke. 'Maneuver' is basically a giant 'spelllist' that all martial characters can choose off of, and give Battlemaster like effects, infinite use. Lots of class specific ones and class feature interaction. Battlemasters get 4 tiers of superiority dice and are basically built to be the rear end in a top hat of the battlefield when combined with maneuvers(Disarm AND trip you in the same turn - and make you make the save at disadvantage, and making you take a bunch of extra damage instead of a measly 1d12). Jacking the good things of 4E: healing surges, Warlords, etc. In a way I'm basically stealth making a new game under the premise of D&D, sorta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
RE: Eberron document Dragonborn get their proficiency on Breath Weapon, races with innate spellcasting get proficiency added to their DC's, but Longtooth Shifters don't get their proficiency with their bite attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Can someone answer me whose actually supposed to be working on D&D's design team? Im kind of curious because Mearls just shot out an incredibly bizarre number that doesn't make any sense (At least seven) and six of those people are mysterious people who are all women. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:In a way I'm basically stealth making a new game under the premise of D&D, sorta. Just tell your friends the game is really called "Dungeons & Dragons: 13th Age" or "Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon World" or "Dungeons & Dragons: Strike!" or "Dungeons & Dragons: The Next Project" or or or...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:how about if the non-casters got, like, explicit powers that had clearly defined mechanical effects on-par with spells. and maybe there could be a Tome that contains these techniques. a tome that describe how to fight, a tome that describes how to battle. A tome of battle if you will. If you really wanted to, you could probably do something like go through all of the spells in the game, figure out what's "appropriate" for a Fighter (or Barbarian or Monk or whoever the hell) to be able to replicate with the power of swole, give them faux-spell progression (which is what maneuvers already are!) and run with that. The Fighter raises up his shield to cast Blade Ward. He can insult you so hard that a target takes a d4 penalty to their attack roll as in the Bane spell. HE CAN JUMP AS IN THE JUMP SPELL. He can Blur himself because okay I can't do this anymore why do I have to make up a justification for a dude that can move so fast that he can blur himself
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
My favourite part of the Artificer is that hes worse than a regular crafter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Red Hood posted:RE: Eberron document They also can't get them enchanted, so I'm glad we're making the same mistakes we made in 2000 and then again in 2008 when 4e did the exact same loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
So what exactly does Mearls actually design? Because he clearly doesn't design any maths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Uh, I may have misread something and I'm not intimately familiar with the 5e rules, but how does the Artificer's "Infuse Scroll" ability differ from "You prepare your spell, just on paper"? Theoretically anyone can use it I guess (if they're the same type of caster as you) but it still uses up your spell slot, which negates the point of preparing scrolls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:Uh, I may have misread something and I'm not intimately familiar with the 5e rules, but how does the Artificer's "Infuse Scroll" ability differ from "You prepare your spell, just on paper"? It uses up your arcane recovery juice so you technically have that ready to go without needing to use a short rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:Uh, I may have misread something and I'm not intimately familiar with the 5e rules, but how does the Artificer's "Infuse Scroll" ability differ from "You prepare your spell, just on paper"? Say I'm a 6th level Wizard (Artificer). I can use Infuse Scroll before I go out to murder-hobo to make a Scroll of Fireball, since Arcane Recovery gives me three levels of spell slots. Now, when I want to fry a group of Goblins, I can cast Fireball from the scroll I wrote, and I still have all three of my 3rd level slots. Another way this is actually kinda useful is that if there's a spell you might need but don't want to prepare, like Feather Fall, you can cast it from that scroll you wrote since Infuse Scroll is based off of spells a Wizard knows, not which he's prepared for that day. So, some utility there. ...I would actually be okay with this Artificer if they had Proficiency in Simple Weapons and Medium Armor/Shields like a Cleric. EDIT: kingcom posted:It uses up your arcane recovery juice so you technically have that ready to go without needing to use a short rest. Yeah, this. You can use your Arcane Recovery feature without having to play the "can we pleeeaaasseeeeee take a rest?!" game with the DM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
NameHurtBrain posted:My primary problem is my game group isn't as nerdy as me and tends to be averse to other systems that don't have D&D on it. I'm in the same boat. In addition to a lack of relative nerdiness, I suspect the other players in my groups would also want to get more than a couple sessions' use out of the 5e PHB they dropped $30-50 on before giving up on the system. This problem is magnified for my DMs since they bought 3x as many books as I did and invested a fair bit of time preparing homebrew adventures around that material. The folks suggesting to just play a different system might be missing how tough it is for some of us to actually do that. It's not quite as easy as "don't play a Rogue"  Back to your point, though, should there be a Google doc or something linked in the OP where house rules can be suggested/critiqued? Several really good ones have come up in this thread (increasing level 1 HP and replacing hit dice with a "reserve" pool of HP for starters). For those of us who are essentially stuck with the system, it'd be a shame for these to be buried among the skeletonchat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted: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. Apart from the fact you're talking rubbish as a Warlock isn't better from level 1. Assuming a rogue has expertise in deception and a +2 charisma bonus, it means to actually lie to someone they need to take a skill check where they will roll between 7 and 26. A Warlock can get the "friends" level 1 spell but that only gives you an advantage on the roll. So you would still need to take the skill check to lie to someone, which assuming the same stats is roll of 4-24 but you get to roll twice and pick the highest. This may be statistically better but you can only do it three times a day and the spell lasts for 1 minute after which whoever you just used it on really hates you. Convinced a guard to let you through to see the King? In 60 seconds he's going to be saying you bewitched him and ringing the bell to alert all the other guards. Plus you can only do it 3 times a day pretty much. Even if you're a wizard with the charm person spell, they need to make a wisdom saving throw or be charmed, whereas if I roll well using the deceive skill you need to beat my roll. Plus the spell only makes the person view you as a "friendly acquitance". You can charm the guard but if he's going to be fired if he let's you in he's not going to just let his friend in. Plus both these spells have vocal and movement comments meaning basically you have to walk up to two guards and obviously do some magic poo poo to charm ONE of them. I suspect the other might notice. The biggest advantage as far as I can tell is that at level 3 they can get 2nd level spells and invisibility blows stealth out of the water as they just touch themselves and disappear, but that's hardly "you can do it all from level 1". I'm not bothered people want to point out the fact that there's a spell for everything which let's magic users do things equally as well or better than other classes, I just don't like the fact that you've said" there's no support for it" which there clearly is, and that when I pointed that out you said "but a Warlock can do that from level 1" which they can't really. It's possible a I may have missed some spells or something as there are a lot of them. From what I can see though the Rogue is better at lying to people and sneaking around at level 1, but a Warlock with access to Higher level spells can do some crazy poo poo. I mean if you were that bothered about magic though at level 3 you can become an arcane trickster and take 3 first level spells anyway AND get the bonuses to deceive etc. which the Warlock doesn't get. At level 7 they get second level spells which includes invisibility. All that is very different to saying "there's no mechanical support to be a rogue conman" and "warlocks are better conmen at level 1". Arguably they are better at sneaking at level 3 than a rogue as they can turn invisible, but it's limited to a few times a day and in 4 levels time the rogue could do it too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:Back to your point, though, should there be a Google doc or something linked in the OP where house rules can be suggested/critiqued? Several really good ones have come up in this thread (increasing level 1 HP and replacing hit dice with a "reserve" pool of HP for starters). For those of us who are essentially stuck with the system, it'd be a shame for these to be buried among the skeletonchat. I wrote one before. Off the top of my head: * Use the standard array. Hell, if you're dealing with newbies, use something like 18/16/14/12/10/8 (or as adjusted for possible racial bonuses) so you're actually only using 4/3/2/1/0/-1 and the players never have to be exposed to the ability score -> ability modifier conversion, especially since Ability Score Increases will always just add 1 to the modifier anyway * Short Rests should be 5 minutes long in order to make it easy to narratively sell taking the Short Rests, because those are important to let certain ability recharges happen and to give the characters access to Hit Dice healing * Level 1 HP is [CON score + max value of 1 hit dice + CON modifier]. What happens on subsequent level-ups can go a lot of ways. Alternatively, start at level 3 so characters aren't so weak, but throwing that many mechanics at players right off the bat can be a lot to deal with * Remember to hand out Inspiration. Consider not limiting characters to a single point of Inspiration * Remember that an "adventuring day" is approximately 6 to 8 encounters, and the party is 'owed' a Short Rest every 2 to 3 encounters * Replace Hit Dice healing with Reserve Points: a character has Reserve Points equal to their maximum Hit Points. When a character takes a Short Rest, they can convert Reserve Points into Hit Points at a 1:1 ratio. All Reserve Points are recovered after taking a Long Rest. Or half of all if you want to keep it in more in line with RAW. Either way the point is to make the healing amounts predictable and precise * Superior Inspiration for Bards and Relentless for Battle Master Fighters will restore one Bardic Inspiration die/Superiority die whenever the character starts a round without any dice, rather than whenever the character rolls for initiative without any dice. Considering how late these abilities are, it's probably never going to matter - perhaps it'd be a good idea to award Superior Inspiration/Relentless earlier * If you're going to create custom monsters, use Sanglorian's guide in the OP so you don't go nuts trying to do it * If feats are to be used, players can get a feat in addition to their Ability Score Increase, rather instead of it * This suggestion is going to be a big and controversial one, but consider using the spell point system in the DMG, except casting spells costs HP (and that HP used to cast spells can only be recovered via resting and Reserve Points). This lets you forget about a bunch of rules regarding spell slots and whatnot, although I am aware that you might experience some wonky effects with regards to healing spells and odder casters like Warlocks and the general milieu of your in-game universe. In exchange, spellcasting becomes more of a carefully rationed resource. It worked well enough in Microlite20 I don't really have enough experience with the classes to suggest class-specific houserules, although I will note that Druids not having shapeshifting at level 1 is a real drag. I'd also try to remember to let the non-caster classes the leeway to declare some actions to be successful, no roll required, due to sheer supercompetency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:a Warlock isn't better from level 1. Yeah, his statement was a little inaccurate. The Warlock actually only starts being outright better at level 2 when it can Disguise Self at-will. Seriously though, a Feylock can aoe charm at level 1 every short rest. Or Sleep the guard. Or Charm Person (idk why it matters if the guard only views you as a "friendly acquaintance" since the Rogue wouldn't even have that much going for it, plus it's still Charmed for any social rolls you'd do). Also Friends is a cantrip. The Warlock isn't better at stealth just because of Invisibility (it helps, sure, because it entirely removes the only roadblock to Hiding which the Rogue can't do without the dm). It becomes supreme sneak-master because of Greater Invisibility at level 7. An Arcane Trickster wouldn't be casting that until level 19. At this point the only argument left for the Rogue seems to be that it's sorta better at its niche at level 1, when a spellcaster doesn't feel like using a spell to do it instead. And even then you can poach the actually useful parts by taking 1 or 2 levels of Rogue (or starting as one) and then continue leveling as a better class. It's not the first couple levels of Rogue that are the problem, it's the last 18 when compared to the tools other classes get. I love Rogues, they're my favorite archetype to play in any game, but in 5e the class is neither the sneakiest nor the most charming/deceptive around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Apart from the fact you're talking rubbish as a Warlock isn't better from level 1. At level 1, Warlocks receive a 1st level spell which allows them to disguise as any humanoid for one hour and for which they do not have to make a roll to pass muster. Instead, for the Warlock to be caught at all, the NPC must make an active decision to inspect them or the DM must contrive a situation in which the warlock is being interacted with physically and even in that situation, the NPC must pass an Int check with a DC 2 less than an equivalent Rogue's average Disguise roll. This means that for NPCs with an int of 10, a Warlock being manhandled has a better chance of passing muster than a Rogue with Deception expertise just being looked at, unless the DM is assigning Very Easy or Easy DC's to the Rogue. Which they never do. Warlocks do have to give up options to use this spell, but Rogues have to give up options to take Deception expertise, and the Warlock can get all those options back the following day. I also think you're very silly because you're essentially saying "Oh well, at a level very few parties play at, the Rogue gets some options for being as good at stealth as a level 3 Warlock, and also only if the Rogue takes spells."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Yeah, his statement was a little inaccurate. The Warlock actually only starts being outright better at level 2 when it can Disguise Self at-will. I apologize, level 1 warlocks are only as good as level 9 Rogues at disguises for 1 hour per day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
So at level 3, casters are better at stealth and deception and martials are worse. At level 9, martials are just as good at stealth and deception, because casters have moved onto being living gods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wrote one before. Off the top of my head... I'm pretty sure that "just start at level 3" is good advice, if not exactly a houserule. There are quite a few classes that don't really do much before then. gradenko_2000 posted:I'd also try to remember to let the non-caster classes the leeway to declare some actions to be successful, no roll required, due to sheer supercompetency. "Say yes or roll the dice", with the following advice: * When a character attempts something within the area of their competence, and failure isn't interesting or important, then say yes. A rogue scrambles to the top of a 6' wall during combat. A barbarian smashes a table in half with his hands. Don't roll. Say yes. * When a character attempts something outside their area of competence (a wizard smashes a table in half with his hands, a cleric scrambles to the top of a 6' wall during combat) or a competent character attempts something where failure is interesting or important (a bard tries to talk the angry guard captain out of throwing everyone in jail, a rogue attempts to speedpick a lock during combat so they can escape) , then roll the dice. edit: It's ok to tell players a thing isn't possible. Some things aren't. The chasm is 100 feet wide, nobody's jumping it. Just make sure that if a thing seems like it might work out then at a minimum roll the dice. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm pretty sure that "just start at level 3" is good advice, if not exactly a houserule. There are quite a few classes that don't really do much before then. I was just being very abbreviated with my statement, but I'd say we're in complete agreement and these guidelines are solid no matter what system you're playing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was just being very abbreviated with my statement, but I'd say we're in complete agreement and these guidelines are solid no matter what system you're playing. I'm agreeing with you, for sure. I consider what I wrote there to be a house rule, in that I mentally substitute it for whatever a D&D-like game tells me about when to roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:At level 1, Warlocks receive a 1st level spell which allows them to disguise as any humanoid for one hour and for which they do not have to make a roll to pass muster. Unless I'm reading this wrong warlocks don't get access to disguise self. Wizards and sorcerers do, but warlocks don't. Let's just assume we are on about one of them for now though. 30.5 Days posted:Instead, for the Warlock to be caught at all, the NPC must make an active decision to inspect them Which is investigation vs your spell casting DC which as a level 1 warlock would be between 10 and 13. So yeah it works on dumb people pretty well. 30.5 Days posted:or the DM must contrive a situation in which the warlock is being interacted with physically [b]and even in that situation, the NPC must pass an Int check with a DC 2 less than an equivalent Rogue's average Disguise roll. Where are you getting this from? The way I read it the spell tells you that literally nothing about your illusion is physical, meaning if I'm standing there disguised as the town guard captain, someone can walk behind me and walk straight through my sword scabbard, or if I sit down it may clip through the wall video game style. Hell even a leaf blowing in the wind would blow through my hat. The rule then says about an investigation check against your DC, but that's only if the person is specifically looking, which granted if you look like the exact replica most people won't look. However if the ground is muddy and you're a woman pretending to be some burly watch commander or something your footprints won't match your boots, anything that involves shaking hands is out as they will feel different to they look. Which means actually there's a ton of ways to give the disguise away without a check, but if you give them a reason to check then they basically have a 50/50 chance, maybe 40/60. 30.5 Days posted:I also think you're very silly because you're essentially saying "Oh well, at a level very few parties play at, the Rogue gets some options for being as good at stealth as a level 3 Warlock, and also only if the Rogue takes spells." No I'm not saying that at all. You said that there was no support to be a rogue conman, I said there was and listed a bunch of stuff. Do you agree that your statement was wrong? Or do you still think that there is no mechanical support? You countered my points by saying "Well a warlock can do that from level 1 which matters because people don't play to level 9". I then pointed out a warlock can't do that from level 1 and the spells they can use are either: a disguise that falls apart the second someone shakes your hand, a spell that makes someone your friend (but doesn't convince them to do whatever you want) for 1 minute after which they want to kill you, or a spell that gives you an advantage to your decieve/persuade roll. Oh and all these spells literally involve you openly doing some weird magic poo poo before you actually cast it, meaning anyone watching can see you casting a spell on someone. These can be used to be a conman, but I wouldn't say they are objectively the best at level 1. Now you're back to arguing that at a high level the warlock can do some cool poo poo that a rogue can't do, but I thought you said it was irrelevant at a high level as people don't play campaigns that far? Because at that level the rogue has the ability to guarantee a minimum roll of like 20 for every persuasion/deception roll. I'm not saying magic isn't powerful (it is) and I'm not saying you can't play a conman wizard/warlock/whatever and it do the same job as a rogue (you can) but they both do things in different ways and dismissing it instantly with next to no explanation is pretty daft and unhelpful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Which means actually there's a ton of ways to give the disguise away without a check Why would odd footprints give the disguise away, no-check? That indicates to me that the person now has a reason to make a check to discern the disguise, not just go "Oh, your hand felt weird, clearly you're a wizard in disguise." Warlocks get Disguise Self via their invocations. It's in their class listing, not the spell list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Seriously though, a Feylock can aoe charm at level 1 every short rest. Or Sleep the guard. Or Charm Person (idk why it matters if the guard only views you as a "friendly acquaintance" since the Rogue wouldn't even have that much going for it, plus it's still Charmed for any social rolls you'd do). Because you're falling into the trap of poor DMing. I'm not going to be pedantic and quantify how friendly you are with someone based off the phrase "friendly acquaintance" so let's just assume it's someone you like but you're not BFF 4 lyf with. Im assuming you know someone in real life that you are friendly with but you're not amazingly close to. Think of that person now. Now imagine that person comes up to you and asks for a favour that could get you fired. Would you do it? Of course not. So yeah you can charm them and be like "Hey dude, I'm short on change can you let me have a free beer?" and the barman will probably let you but saying "Hey dude I'm on important business from the King and he says send the bill for these rooms and drinks and things to him" is still going to require a deception skill check. Even if you get an advantage to it, it's still the case you've cast a spell to be only a tiny bit better than a rogue if at all (charisma bonus+2 with advantage vs charisma bonus + 4). Generic Octopus posted:Also Friends is a cantrip. It also lasts 60 seconds before the person basically wants to kill you for putting him under a spell. Whereas successfully lying to someone continues to work until they find out it was a lie. Generic Octopus posted:The Warlock isn't better at stealth just because of Invisibility (it helps, sure, because it entirely removes the only roadblock to Hiding which the Rogue can't do without the dm). It becomes supreme sneak-master because of Greater Invisibility at level 7. An Arcane Trickster wouldn't be casting that until level 19. At level 11 a rogue with an expertise in sneak and a +2 Dec bonus would treat all stealth rolls of a 9 or less as a 10, and gets their +4 proficiency bonus doubled to +8 meaning your minimum stealth roll would be 20. In theory stealth is supposed to be checked against passive perception unless something is actively looking for you, so basically the rogue can become invisible to nearly everything on command anyway. Yeah in theory the DM could be like "OK well where are you going to hide in this featureless room?" which is both fair play and sort of kills the entire idea of anything skill based in one go. Oh and at level 14 the rogue can detect invisible creatures within 10ft of himself, so if you were invisible you'd also have to take a stealth check. I'm not sure how many other creatures can detect invisible beings but I'm going to assume it's not many but I just wanted to point it out. Generic Octopus posted:At this point the only argument left for the Rogue seems to be that it's sorta better at its niche at level 1, when a spellcaster doesn't feel like using a spell to do it instead. And even then you can poach the actually useful parts by taking 1 or 2 levels of Rogue (or starting as one) and then continue leveling as a better class. It's not the first couple levels of Rogue that are the problem, it's the last 18 when compared to the tools other classes get. To me the biggest advantage to being a rogue is minimising the RNG elements. You get more skills you're proficient with (you start with six and with feats can get 3 more) and you can be an expert with 6 skills all giving great bonuses making you less likely to fail your rolls. You get the ability for your dex saves that reduce damage to auto pass, you get the ability to roll a minimum of 10 for any skill you're proficient in (which is up to 9 of them!) and at level 20 you can treat 1 skill roll as a success even if it fails, or one successful roll as a 20 once a day. All those things to me say it let's you build a broad character that generally isn't effected too much by poor rolling. There's a place for that and I'd prefer that over relying on spells for it all. My point isn't to try and argue like which build can be optimised to gently caress with NPCs the best, it's just that some people are keen to dismiss it as useless when it's not. The biggest problem is that when a spell says "This spell makes the person do what I want" the DM is fine but as soon as you delve into the social skill usage DMs are, perhaps unsurprisingly, a bit hit and miss so it's easier to use magic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
I think if beautiful heiress has huge manhands in a world where magic users are fairly common, your DM would have to have created a world made up entirely of morons for that not to be a giveaway. Oh and our DM is heavy story so I imagine creative social interactions will not be a problem. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Unless I'm reading this wrong warlocks don't get access to disguise self. Wizards and sorcerers do, but warlocks don't. Oh, it's the lovely layout of the spell list. You're right, it's wizards who have access to disguise self at level 1, up to 4 hours per day. Additionally, sorcerors, bards, and clerics who spec into trickery. Warlocks can only access disguise self through Mask of Many Faces (at will), starting from level 2. quote:Where are you getting this from? The way I read it the spell tells you that literally nothing about your illusion is physical, meaning if I'm standing there disguised as the town guard captain, someone can walk behind me and walk straight through my sword scabbard, or if I sit down it may clip through the wall video game style. Hell even a leaf blowing in the wind would blow through my hat. But the spell says that in order to actually find you out, an NPC has to spend an action and make a check. Otherwise, what's the point of the sentence about the check? Anyone who can spend an action to make a roll can spend an action to poke you and get the same results if poking you is an automatic reveal. quote:You said that there was no support to be a rogue conman, I said there was and listed a bunch of stuff. Do you agree that your statement was wrong? Or do you still think that there is no mechanical support? And then I said that was hyperbolic and then you responded to it so I know you know I said it was hyperbolic, so why are you moving the goalposts? quote:Oh and all these spells literally involve you openly doing some weird magic poo poo before you actually cast it, meaning anyone watching can see you casting a spell on someone. Why would a disguise spell with a 1 hour duration require anyone to see you doing anything? quote:These can be used to be a conman, but I wouldn't say they are objectively the best at level 1. Sorry, level 2. Or if they're wizards, sorcerors, bards, or clerics, level 1. quote:Now you're back to arguing that at a high level the warlock can do some cool poo poo that a rogue can't do, but I thought you said it was irrelevant at a high level as people don't play campaigns that far? It was a crack about the fact that there is no level where martials are worth playing in 5th edition D&D. Are you going for a run soon? You're stretching. quote:Because at that level the rogue has the ability to guarantee a minimum roll of like 20 for every persuasion/deception roll. At level 9? How's that work? Do you know how skills work in 5th? You're talking about a 22 Charisma on the FAR OUTSIDE + a flat proficiency bonus. How do you get a minimum roll of 20 from that? Meanwhile, the warlock's spell save DC keeps going up and the guards don't usually get smarter. quote:I'm not saying magic isn't powerful (it is) and I'm not saying you can't play a conman wizard/warlock/whatever and it do the same job as a rogue (you can) but they both do things in different ways and dismissing it instantly with next to no explanation is pretty daft and unhelpful. Yes, they do things in different ways. The rogue way, you have to roll to do one of the things your class is supposed to be good at. The caster way, you are considered to be successful by default at something outside your class's kit and can only be made to fail by DM fiat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think if beautiful heiress has huge manhands in a world where magic users are fairly common, your DM would have to have created a world made up entirely of morons for that not to be a giveaway. That same logic defeats the rogue's uber-disguise too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Why is a confidence trickster relying on disguises and stuff again? Why is a confidence trickster who is a big meaty-handed dude trying to disguise himself as a small-handed lady, regardless of the method?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
They primarily wouldn't be. It would be primarily based on lies and deception with some mummery thrown in to compliment the lie. Also charm person is a great way to get busted since the target will know it was charmed when the spell ends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think if beautiful heiress has huge manhands in a world where magic users are fairly common, your DM would have to have created a world made up entirely of morons for that not to be a giveaway. If you look like a beautiful heiress while having visibly huge guard-captain manhands then you've massively hosed up your disguise spell somehow. Kitchner posted:Now imagine that person comes up to you and asks for a favour that could get you fired. Would you do it? Of course not. Hence the check after you've charmed them, to convince them if they're being stubborn about it. quote:At level 11 a rogue with an expertise in sneak and a +2 Dec bonus would treat all stealth rolls of a 9 or less as a 10, and gets their +4 proficiency bonus doubled to +8 meaning your minimum stealth roll would be 20. In theory stealth is supposed to be checked against passive perception unless something is actively looking for you, so basically the rogue can become invisible to nearly everything on command anyway. Cool, but while the Rogue can become basically invisible at level 11 to nearly everything while out of combat, the Warlock has been able to be literally invisible to everything in or out of combat since level 3. I'm not saying there's no value in high numbers, but anyone can poach Expertise for a 1 level investment and take 10 on the roll outside of combat. In combat, the Rogue has no use for his stealth at all unless the dm has set up the battlefield so they can use it. quote:You get more skills you're proficient with (you start with six and with feats can get 3 more) and you can be an expert with 6 skills all giving great bonuses making you less likely to fail your rolls. Which is a reason to start out as a Rogue at level 1 and leveling it to 2 at some point (Expertise and Cunning Action are Good Things) but it's kinda silly to compare the spells casters are getting at higher levels to being less likely to fumble a thievery check. quote:The biggest problem is that when a spell says "This spell makes the person do what I want" the DM is fine but as soon as you delve into the social skill usage DMs are, perhaps unsurprisingly, a bit hit and miss so it's easier to use magic. Yea, exactly. Spells are pretty discrete "Thing Happens" clauses in the rule system; lots of skill checks & the stuff that goes with them are firmly in the realm of "what does the dm think makes sense at this moment?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Except that where pure deception is concerned, the Rogue only gets a +2 bonus over the caster and in some cases charm is just fine, like if you need information, or have a plan to stow your pissed off mark. "Rogues do things differently from casters, +2 on rolls is just as good as a box of i-win buttons."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Wouldn't have to be visible. "My lady" goes to kiss hand. "gently caress off get away from me!" Also making your warlock use all his daily spells for rp is great...until combat starts and you got nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Wouldn't have to be visible. "My lady" goes to kiss hand. "gently caress off get away from me!" As mentioned, disguise self doesn't consume spell slots for warlocks. Also, warlocks have a lot of options other than spell slots, in exchange for fewer slots. Basically, you're describing the fact that the DM has a "you lose" button for disguise self. But he has that for the level 9 assassin ability as well. And depending on the reading of Disguise Self, you still get a roll after the DM presses the button which you do not get with the assassin ability. Finally, which do you think is more likely to fail- a disguise you have to roll on, but with a plus two, or a disguise that requires the DM to actively decide you lose to fail?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Warlocks also have the advantage of being able to use charisma as their main combat stat.
Andrast fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
I mean it's D&D, the DM always has a "you lose" button. It usually goes unpressed. If you disguise 10 times in 10 sessions, you'll probably get screwed over once, as a novelty, and the rogue will lose to dice 4 times easy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:56
|
|