|
ActusRhesus posted:Wouldn't have to be visible. "My lady" goes to kiss hand. "gently caress off get away from me!" More likely, "Hrm, your hand seems weird." *Rolls check* Warlocks get their spells after a short rest, which is why the direct comparison is being drawn; their resources are fairly easy to get back compared to other casters. And even then they still have cantrips.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
If I were the DM the latter because I find "magic solves everything" boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Unfortunately, D&D design doesn't agree with you. From two pages back: quote: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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Warlock also have advantage of being able to use charisma as their main combat stat. Yeah this is a really important point- a warlock, bard, or sorceror's spell DC are going to scale as you level, if a rogue's deception check is scaling, you're giving up something important. EDIT: Now that I think about it, a warlock, bard, or sorceror's deception checks will also scale. I still hold that scaling's largely irrelevant, because nobody plays basic attack D&D past level 5, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also making your warlock use all his daily spells for rp is great...until combat starts and you got nothing. Warlocks, at second level, can take mask of many faces as an Eldritch Invocation. This allows them to cast Disguise Self at will, without expending a spell slot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
I would actually love to see a game where the DM just says gently caress you, you fail to most kit spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
To provide a counterpoint, the rogue might not scale with the spellcasters, but they are at least viable at low levels. If the game's starting at level Rogue 101: Humans with Actor make for great con artists. Advantage when pretending to be someone else rocks. (After modifiers you want Dex 16, Cha 16). Rogues want to be two weapon fighters most of the time. The off hand dagger might take the place of your bonus action - but it gives you a second try to get Sneak Attack (Rapier and Dagger works). Thief isn't so bad at low levels. The point of the first thief class feature is that you can make a brush pass - you can walk through a crowd moving normally and never break your stride while picking a pocket or two. Of course it doesn't scale. Expertise matters. Have fun! As I say, the rogue doesn't scale properly but they at least work pretty well at low levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:
No it says "Your disguise doesn't hold up the physical inspection" then gives some examples. Then, spereately, it says a character can spend an action trying to see if you're in disguise or not. If we take the example of pretending to be the King. I walk up to some dude, dressed normally and definitely not being the King, and I say "I'm the king you know" and what the DM should say is "Don't be dumb, he knows you look nothing like the King". Likewise if you have disguised yourself to be a foot taller than you really are (which you can do) and you disguise yourself as the King and start walking around with your head passing through low hanging doorframes and poo poo, what do you think people are going to do? Fail an investigation check and say "Hmm well I can clearly see his head is currently half lodged in the ceiling, and when he shook my hand with his big iron gloved hand it felt like a dainty woman's hand. Nahhh I'm sure he's ok". On the other hand though you can just have someone disguise themselves as the King and as soon as they meet a guard he just pokes the king for no reason and goes "Here! He's not real!". So the way I see it that if the person has a reason to think you might be an imposter, they can take the check which, at worst, they have 40% or so chance of passing. If your disguise is obviously false because things are clearly passing through it in a really obvious way I don't think they need a check to know that there's something wrong. They may not be like "Hey this guy is a wizard in disguise!" but they will know it's not right. Whereas if your footprints don't match or your hands feel slightly different (rather than massively different) then that would be a reason to suspect the disguise so they would take the check. 30.5 Days posted: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? I'm not because if nothing else your hyperbole is totally unhelpful to anyone. Considering though you went on to say a load of other stuff that basically meant the same thing though I did wonder if you knew what the phrase hyperbole actually meant. 30.5 Days posted:Why would a disguise spell with a 1 hour duration require anyone to see you doing anything? It wouldn't. The other two would though. 30.5 Days posted: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. You're the one who has changed his argument about why anyone who plays a rogue conman is dumb about 3 times now not me. I think you're probably grasping more than I'm stretching here, I look forward to the next post about how you never meant those previous things you said and in fact you mean this new thing you haven't mentioned until now. 30.5 Days posted: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. It's at level 11 not 9 and I already explained. You get an ability to treat any roll for a skill you're proficient in as a 10, so thats 10. You then get to add your charisma bonus which let's say is +2 as that only requires 14 charisma, so thats 12. You also get to add double your proficiency bonus, which is +4 so that's 12+8 which is 20. Minimum roll of 20 every time on any expert skill where the stat is at least 14. When I originally made this point you tried to say it was irrelevant because no one plays to that level. Then followed up by saying "Yeah but this spell at level 9". Or is it people just don't play past level 10? Even if you want to discount all that above because it's level 11 for some reason at level 9 the assassin rogue can spend 25GP to literally create a bulletproof alias with all the paperwork to go with it without rolling that everyone will instantly believe. There's tons of stuff rogues can do but you didn't say "Yeah they get all this cool stuff if you do this, but if you take this class with these spells you can do the same thing but it's a bit easier as it's not left up to the DM" you just basically said "lol what scrub wants to be a rogue they are so poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I find "magic solves everything" boring. Then I'd say that you should be avoiding everything after about the middle of 2nd ed. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I'm not being sarcastic here. D&D Next explicitly does not support the way you want to play. That is, you can solve everything via magic in this game, and it's often objectively the best solution. Kitchner posted:Even if you want to discount all that above because it's level 11 for some reason at level 9 the assassin rogue can spend 25GP to literally create a bulletproof alias with all the paperwork to go with it without rolling that everyone will instantly believe. ...until "given an obvious reason not to". Like perhaps you're claiming to be a merchant but you have laborer's hands or something. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, how many of these zingers that immediately disprove the warlock abilities also consistently work against rogues rolling skills? Also, uh, what stops warlocks from using their skills too? D&D 3. and 5e has two classes: spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Spellcasters also have skills! And their spells on top of it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Then I'd say that you should be avoiding everything after about the middle of 2nd ed. I had quite a bit of fun playing a non magic rogue in 3.5. And the 3.5 game I DM 'd had a rogue and fighter who also seemed to have fun. And again to the above poster, you are taking that paragraph out of context. Of course a party needs casters. But we already have 3. Saying "adventurers need magic or the party will wipe" is not the same as "everyone must be a caster."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I had quite a bit of fun playing a non magic rogue in 3.5. And the 3.5 game I DM 'd had a rogue and fighter who also seemed to have fun. And again to the above poster, you are taking that paragraph out of context. Of course a party needs casters. But we already have 3. Saying "adventurers need magic or the party will wipe" is not the same as "everyone must be a caster." Who said that you can't have fun with non-casters?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Who said that you can't have fun with non-casters? See above and advice that boils down to "if you want to play 5.0 don't play a non caster." When I DM I tend to operate on the NPCs are not retards premise. So you sneak into the palace with Charm person ONCE. Spell wears off. Guard is pissed guard captain now implements detect magic at all check points and local authorities are on alert for magic users. It's not that hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:If your disguise is obviously false because things are clearly passing through it in a really obvious way I don't think they need a check to know that there's something wrong. They may not be like "Hey this guy is a wizard in disguise!" but they will know it's not right. Whereas if your footprints don't match or your hands feel slightly different (rather than massively different) then that would be a reason to suspect the disguise so they would take the check. Yeah, if you use poo poo disguises they are likely to be found out easily. I'm assuming the high mental stats classes tend to be smart about their disguises, but let's put that aside. Is your DM going to allow Brotoc the Orc Scoundrel to disguise themselves as Lady Elise to get into the ball?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:See above and advice that boils down to "if you want to play 5.0 don't play a non caster." So don't use Charm Person when sneaking past a guard; use Invisibility. Really the advice boils down to the fact that casters have a larger toolbox of more powerful effects. The Rogue's claim to fame is getting good skill bonuses via Expertise, which is easily poached by anyone. Aside from that you're left with not a lot that is completely unique to Rogue that can't be replicated or emulated with spells or the abilities of other, stronger classes like Monk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:No it says "Your disguise doesn't hold up the physical inspection" then gives some examples. Then, spereately, it says a character can spend an action trying to see if you're in disguise or not. Yes, but the exact word it uses to describe the check is inspect. As in, your disguise doesn't hold up to inspection. To inspect your physical appearance, someone spends an action on the inspection and then rolls a check to determine whether the inspection discovers your disguise. quote:If we take the example of pretending to be the King. I walk up to some dude, dressed normally and definitely not being the King, and I say "I'm the king you know" and what the DM should say is "Don't be dumb, he knows you look nothing like the King". Why would any of this happen? Like is there a rule saying casters can't duck now? Again, what you're essentially describing a you-lose button for the DM. There's no reason to think that any of the situations you've described would happen unless the DM just randomly declared they did. I think the rules are pretty clear that even in the case of a you-lose button, you get a roll. But even if you're right and the word inspection doesn't mean the inspection they were talking about three sentences prior, it is still identical to the Assassin ability, which also has a you-lose button in the form of the DM deciding that some guy would never do or say some thing you just did. quote:I'm not because if nothing else your hyperbole is totally unhelpful to anyone. Considering though you went on to say a load of other stuff that basically meant the same thing though I did wonder if you knew what the phrase hyperbole actually meant. I don't think "the rogue's deception options, which include a 25g disguise self and a +2 to a skill that's keyed to a secondary stat are poo poo compared to basically half the casters in the game, for whom charisma is their primary stat" is the same as "rogues don't have any mechanical support". More importantly, if what I've been saying is the same as "rogues don't have any mechanical support" why would you feel the need to bring up "rogues don't have any mechanical support" as we've both agreed that that is not a true statement? quote:It wouldn't. The other two would though. The other two what? You responded to a post entirely about disguise self. quote:You're the one who has changed his argument about why anyone who plays a rogue conman is dumb about 3 times now not me. I think you're probably grasping more than I'm stretching here, I look forward to the next post about how you never meant those previous things you said and in fact you mean this new thing you haven't mentioned until now. This has literally never happened. quote:You get an ability to treat any roll for a skill you're proficient in as a 10, so thats 10. You then get to add your charisma bonus which let's say is +2 as that only requires 14 charisma, so thats 12. You also get to add double your proficiency bonus, which is +4 so that's 12+8 which is 20. I never talked about a level 9 spell. I keep repeatedly talking about the Level 9 assassin ability that rogues receive and I made a joke that by the time the rogue gets it warlocks and bards and sorcerors are living gods. I generally don't believe people play past level 5, if you're looking to pin me down. quote:Even if you want to discount all that above because it's level 11 for some reason at level 9 the assassin rogue can spend 25GP to literally create a bulletproof alias with all the paperwork to go with it without rolling that everyone will instantly believe. No, they'll believe it unless the DM decides the rogue didn't say simon says and does something unbelievable for the person he's impersonating. Who is a made-up person. You know, a you lose button, just like Disguise Self. But I've talked about this ability an awful lot in the last three pages, so you should check out my previous posts on the topic if you'd like to learn more. quote:There's tons of stuff rogues can do but you didn't say "Yeah they get all this cool stuff if you do this, but if you take this class with these spells you can do the same thing but it's a bit easier as it's not left up to the DM" you just basically said "lol what scrub wants to be a rogue they are so poo poo". With regard to deception, they get two things. A +2 bonus and an at-will disguise self that costs 25gp at level 9. You know, that thing that warlocks get for 0gp at level 2. That's it! Those are both options. You can choose them. But the +2 bonus is going to get outstripped by the fact that charisma-based casters are just going to have higher Cha than the rogue and warlocks get that other thing at level 2. Rogues suck at deception! quote:It's at level 11 not 9 and I already explained. You didn't in the post I quoted but ok, I appreciate the explanation. Here's the problem: the level 9 ability makes this irrelevant. A deception check will only be getting rolled for the rogue and int checks rolled for the warlock if the DM has decided you're caught. It's not like the DM is going to say "oh you said he likes escargot but he's allergic!" and then say "oh but the DC is only 15 so I guess he believes you".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
There are creative ways to deal with overuse of invisibility too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:
I take the point but I think rough hands probably shouldn't be enough to discount it. Whereas if your presenting a letter from the Pope saying he's sent you to be his religious representative to purge the city of sin and you're doing so in a whore house while someone sucks your cock then yeah. I refuse to believe though that the same guards who apparently need to take a 50/50 chance of guessing something is wrong when they shake someone's hand and it feels wrong would also notice my hands are too rough to have been a merchant my whole life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Nobody is saying you MUST be a spellcaster. They are saying a spellcaster will be better at the job. If you're ok with that then what are you even arguing about? If you are not ok with that then don't shoot the messenger. This is the same loving discussion that existed everywhere across the span of 3e, people point out how powerful spellcasters are and then other people get offended that the game is not mechanically what they thought it was and take it out on the first group of people. 5e is rather explicitly a game where some mechanical options are better then others. If you don't like that, blame the fuckin' game. Also, 5e uses 3e style multiclassing, which is being a bit ignored. Like, if you want to be mechanically the best and most versatile sneaky charming roguish swashbuckler type, you probably want a smattering of rogue and fighter (3 and 2 levels a piece) then a bunch of warlock. That doesn't mean pure rogue is unplayable. It means it isn't as strong. You can go pure rogue, especially at lower levels, and still have fun in the game. You just won't be mechanically optimal. If that's ok, then why do you even care. If it's not ok, get used to it or houserule it, because that's how the game works. If you want to be the sneakiest ninja possible, I believe your best bet is to take a mix of rogue and shadow monk. Does that mean you can never be a sneaky ninja assassin as a pure class rogue? Of course not! It DOES mean you could potentially be a better one. Are you ok with that? Then no problem! Are you not ok with it? Fix it, grit your teeth, or change games, because that's how the mechanics work. To quote an elementary school teacher, math doesn't go away just because you hate it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:See above and advice that boils down to "if you want to play 5.0 don't play a non caster." No, the advice boils down to "if you want to be mechanically good at your job, don't play a non caster". That was true in 3.5e. If you don't care about that, open the book and pick what sounds good. It's not really important if you're good at your job, it's a game where literally everything you fight is made by your friends. There is a silly assumption that someone who comes in and asks "what's the best way to X" is actually interested in doing X well. If you don't care, then take the advice in the third post after your first one, grab deception expertise and take assassin. That's literally all there is to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There are creative ways to deal with overuse of invisibility too. So you are basically saying that the DM must go out of his way to gently caress with casters so that the rogue is on the same level?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I take the point but I think rough hands probably shouldn't be enough to discount it. But just like decisions to make gusts of wind shatter a magical disguise, it's entirely up to DM fiat whether the disguise works or not. In other words, it's basically disguise self. Maybe your DM is like you and will tend to be harder on Disguise Self when there's a rogue right-the-gently caress-there. Maybe the DM is the opposite and is an idiot who goes "but how can 25gp worth of props beat ~*'magic'*~?" Maybe the DM is like that one dude's from earlier in the thread who just says "no" to the assassin ability because verisimilitude. The point is that from a rules situation they're equal because DM bias is going to decide which one's better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:But just like decisions to make gusts of wind shatter a magical disguise, it's entirely up to DM fiat whether the disguise works or not. In other words, it's basically disguise self. Maybe your DM is like you and will tend to be harder on Disguise Self when there's a rogue right-the-gently caress-there. Maybe the DM is the opposite and is an idiot who goes "but how can 25gp worth of props beat ~*'magic'*~?" Maybe the DM is like that one dude's from earlier in the thread who just says "no" to the ability be cause verisimilitude. The point is that from a rules situation they're equal because DM bias is going to decide which one's better. Even in the case of the above, the Assassin feature needs a week til it starts to function.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
I mean poo poo, you can't even sneak around in the dark as a rogue with most races because you have no way of seeing in the dark. Warlocks get that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There are creative ways to deal with overuse of invisibility too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:See above and advice that boils down to "if you want to play 5.0 don't play a non caster." What's happening here is that either you do not pay special attention to the capabilities of a caster vis-a-vis the non-caster and the caster is more capable because that's how magic works in D&D, or you do pay attention to them to try to rein them in and that means having some of their spells straight up fail or cause some undesirable consequences or some other similar limit, including ones that are narratively justified per your palace guard example. It's ugly design because whether you're making GBS threads on the Rogue's experience by letting the caster stretch his legs or you're making GBS threads on the caster's experience by letting the Rogue play catch-up, either way you're paying a disproportionate amount of attention to the caster. You're absolutely right that there is a way to DM D&D in such a manner that doesn't let the casters run away with (certain parts of) the game, but a well designed game shouldn't even need to make you do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:How do you not screw over the class that gets it as an at-will feature? Yes, how will we maintain 5e's delicate balance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Dude. Firstly half the stuff that I disagreed with you saying you later came back and said it was hyperbole or a joke. If they were meant as such it didn't come across that way at all and it wasn't very helpful to the person you were responding to. Me and you can argue about it all we like but ultimately it's on you to either think "Oh maybe he's got a point and I should try to be clearer / not try to use hyperbole or jokes because I suck at conveying them via text" or to just ignore what I'm saying as obviously I'm some blathering idiot who doesn't know how to communicate in writing. I'll let you pick which you want to do because discussing it further won't get anywhere. Half of your complaints don't seem to be with the rules themselves but with how a DM applies them. Deception works, the assassin thing works, as long as you have a DM who doesn't just say poo poo doesn't work for no real reason. I already agree DMs can be lovely about this stuff as I brought it up myself pages ago. I get on with my current DM and he's pretty good in general but he sucks at handling the social skills side of RPGs. The other half seems to be writing poo poo off that basically is "Well magic does everything better" while totally ignoring some key poo poo that the other class you're on about (rogues) can do. Also it doesn't give you a +2 bonus to decieve by the way, it doubles your proficiency bonus, so +2 at level one, +4 when you're level 11 with the always roll ten or more thing. If you don't think that plus +3 or +4 to a roll is a big deal try taking all your checks at - 3 or - 4. I also agree level 1 of rogues can be taken just to steal the expert skills poo poo but I can be a rogue and do the same with a warlock right? So it seems a bit of a non issue. I never set out to make out that rogues are like the best there ever is at anything, just there class does have some speaking stuff both at the start and at later levels, and all your "hyperbole" and "jokes" about not playing as them doesn't help people who ask "Hey, what's the best way to be a rogue"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Andrast posted:So you are basically saying that the DM must go out of his way to gently caress with casters so that the rogue is on the same level? No. I'm saying that when something is becoming an overused trope it's the DMs job to not have NPCs who are on autopilot. For all classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
So 3.5e talk: bard, wizard, and sorceror have large chunks of the rogue's kit just like, there, as spells. I vaguely remember the kit being more split up in 3.5e, with only the bard having a good cross-section of it. Is that not accurate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Dude. Firstly half the stuff that I disagreed with you saying you later came back and said it was hyperbole or a joke. No, I said "rogues don't have any mechanical support for deception" was hyperbole and "by the time rogues hit level 9, casters are living gods" was a joke. That's the sum total of it. quote:Half of your complaints don't seem to be with the rules themselves but with how a DM applies them. No, wrong. My complaint is that depending on DM application, the rogue kit is either entirely useless or the only game in town. And it's not an interpretation question. You literally need d100 doing "stray gusts of wind" checks every 5 minutes to balance Disguise Self, a level 1 spell, against a level 9 Rogue ability. You're right that if the DM is applying "stray gusts of wind" on the regular, Disguise Self is not a good replacement for the rogue. However, there is not rule indication that this should happen, just a description of how the spell works as though D&D is a real place where random unscripted things happen and so these random unscripted things will naturally lead to Disguise Self sometimes being disrupted. The rules are not sufficient to provide a DM the guidance necessary to make the rogue's non-combat kit compelling when compared to similar caster kits, and they appear to outright favor the casters. quote:Deception works, the assassin thing works, as long as you have a DM who doesn't just say poo poo doesn't work for no real reason. Except that you seem to believe that DMs should say that Disguise Self doesn't work for no real reason. Or you believe interrupting an RP with "oh a guy just walked by you and bumped into your fat now you're in combat" is compelling storytelling. Without that random DM smackdown, you've got two disguise abilities that never fail, one at level 1 and one at level 9. quote:The other half seems to be writing poo poo off that basically is "Well magic does everything better" while totally ignoring some key poo poo that the other class you're on about (rogues) can do. Also it doesn't give you a +2 bonus to decieve by the way, it doubles your proficiency bonus, so +2 at level one, +4 when you're level 11 with the always roll ten or more thing. If you don't think that plus +3 or +4 to a roll is a big deal try taking all your checks at - 3 or - 4. Except that we both (apparently) agree that both Disguise Self and the level 9 always succeed without a drat good reason, so who- well, who cares about this formula?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. I'm saying that when something is becoming an overused trope it's the DMs job to not have NPCs who are on autopilot. For all classes. So "cheat a player out of his rules-given abilities." Got it. Note that this disproportionately affects classes who actually have things which reliably influence the game. Ie: spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
moths posted:So "cheat a player out of his rules-given abilities." Got it. I agree that this would go a long way toward improving the balance, but maybe not the play experience. If only there were a way to design pros and cons around different play options in a way that was balanced and produced varied gameplay, and then codify that into writing. I bet you could get people to pay money for those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There are creative ways to deal with overuse of invisibility too. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is capable of DMing well enough to not allow abuse. On the other hand, it's funny that people have to come up with poo poo like 'your head clips through walls without you noticing' as a failure case for spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
moths posted:So "cheat a player out of his rules-given abilities." Got it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What's happening here is that either you do not pay special attention to the capabilities of a caster vis-a-vis the non-caster and the caster is more capable because that's how magic works in D&D, or you do pay attention to them to try to rein them in and that means having some of their spells straight up fail or cause some undesirable consequences or some other similar limit, including ones that are narratively justified per your palace guard example. This, exactly. If you have the DM constantly monitor for 'realistic' reactions to spells, looking for ways to add consequence that would make sense for those spells - what you end up doing is adversarial DMing. Not at first, of course. You introduce a common-sense reaction to Charm Person. Okay, so the Wizard now knows his spell is unreliable. Next time he will find a different spell or apply an additional hoop so that the common-sense reaction is minimized or elimination. After even a couple of rounds of this poo poo you end up in an arms race with your players trying to 'balance' magic through the story. I still think one of the easiest ways to balance magic is to accept that in DnD, magic is everywhere and people have tricks for dealing with it. Anti-magic zones, amulets that detect magic use, and so on. It creates a way for mages and non-mages to live in the same universe since removing the magic defenses is something only a mundane character can do. I'm not sure that's a fun setting or one that I'd actually advocate playing in but its better than the default, 'Wizards are rare and special' setting that crops up in like every game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Well it's a kind of lovely paradox which is that magic as portrayed in media like movies and books or single player video games or whatever is that magic is an awesome thing that an angel shows up to save you with or a very special power that the protagonist owns everyone with. Magic as portrayed in media is not meant to live on an equal level with even incredible swordsmen. In ensemble-based shows where major characters used magic it's basically like being a decker in shadowrun. They spend a lot of time off to the side doing their own thing and not participating in the combat on screen. So it's very difficult to do a game where magic users work and fight together with non-magic-users, draw from that same fantasy well, and expect things to work out okay without a lot of thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:
There's a ton of reasons that magically creating an illusion that you're someone of a slightly different size and shape would give you away in ways that can be picked up on purely through the players actions. The only one I can think of that wouldn't would be if the player didn't actually interact with anything. Like you literally can't even pick something up without it looking weird. If your job is to sit in the coach looking like the King while your friends pretend to be bodyguards tell people to get the gently caress out of the way then yeah that works. If you're pretending to be a merchant collecting his gold from the bank the moment you're passed a quill to sign for it you're hosed as unless your hands are exactly the same size it's going to look weird. Also note that you only look like the person, it doesn't say anything about sounding like them. So if you're not the same race or even from the same part of the world it could give you away if you speak to someone who has heard you speak before (or unless you sound obviously different like the wrong gender). Yeah I'm not saying it's not good, or it can't be used to achieve some things a disguise kit and a roll could do, but it's also got its own flaws. Something I'm capable of admitting but you're apparently not. Both ways have strengths and weaknesses, and the overwhelming strength of any of the spells is its not influenced by the DM. So what it boils down to is, if the DM makes bullshit calls then it's poo poo. Who would have thought it? 30.5 Days posted:Except that you seem to believe that DMs should say that Disguise Self doesn't work for no real reason. Or you believe interrupting an RP with "oh a guy just walked by you and bumped into your fat now you're in combat" is compelling storytelling. Without that random DM smackdown, you've got two disguise abilities that never fail, one at level 1 and one at level 9. Yeah I never said any of those things. You know what my DM said last time we came to a town? "So it's a town in the mountains and it's currently showing really hard. There's a big wooden gate to the town with some fires lit outside" (or something like that). If you turn around and you're like "No problemo, I cast disguise self and disguise myself as the King and tell them to open the door". The first thing that the guards would see is a man standing there who apparently has no snow flakes landing on his clothes despite standing in a blizzard. On the other hand if I had, for some reason, the King's clothes and a disguise kit I could look like the king being snowed on. There's literally a ton of ways that essentially making yourself look like you have different proportions and the fact that everything isn't physically there can go wrong because players don't think about what they say they do. Just because you think the only way to deal with it is to say "Oh some guy bumps onto you btw" doesn't mean that all there is. 30.5 Days posted:Except that we both (apparently) agree that both Disguise Self and the level 9 always succeed without a drat good reason, so who- well, who cares about this formula? Because I said it was good, you said I was making it up and obviously you can't do it without 22 charisma, now you're saying who cares. Well I do because it was my original point about a good reason to specifically be a rogue conman and you've tried to ignore or dispute the point in 3 different ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
I think it really comes down to how the two "power sources" are treated mechanically: if I roll a success on my "Master Conman" skill, it should be just as valid as Bob rolling a success on his "Crafty Illusionist" skill. If I spend a "Charisma token" to make sure that my attempt to bribe the palace guard works, it should be just as valid as Bob spending one of his "spell tokens" to achieve the same effect. It breaks down in D&D because you've got both systems working at the same time, but some classes can access both, and the guidelines for setting up the skill checks are open-ended enough that people who aren't keyed into math and probability are probably going to mess it up (and it's not like you can blame them)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is capable of DMing well enough to not allow abuse. I'm not so sure when advice is "if you don't want to play a world in which caster always wins, don't play DnD" or: moths posted:So "cheat a player out of his rules-given abilities." Got it. Is it "cheating a player" when your bad guy caster automatically hones in on the beefy but stupid fighter with mind control spells to neutralize his melee effectiveness? Or if your bad guys move so they aren't always in sneak attack range? Or if a rogue throat punches the caster so they can't use any voice spells? Or if your trash mob swarms the healer so they have to use actions to defend themselves rather than heal? Bottom line, as others have pointed out, Magic in the DnD world is so common that people should not be all that surprised by it and people with a lot to lose are probably finding ways to counter it, so "I'm just going to make myself invisible" isn't always going to be the solution. If it is, you're being lazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:10
|
|