|
You're describing a lot of limitations on disguise self. "It doesn't work in the rain because you don't look like you're getting wet" isn't mentioned anywhere in the spell description unless the spell description is really different than what I remember.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Why exactly would I ever need to roll a skill check when I can solve any problem in game with over a hundred skeletons mounted on skelephants?quote:You're describing a lot of limitations on disguise self. "It doesn't work in the rain because you don't look like you're getting wet" isn't mentioned anywhere in the spell description unless the spell description is really different than what I remember. I like this approach because gently caress it, who cares. Disguise self and Knock shouldn't even be loving spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted: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? I'm not sure what you're applying to casters that wouldn't also apply to noncasters. Like, okay, spells are now countered because all the world knows them to exist so everyone knows how to beat them. That leaves the spellcasters with skill checks and the noncasters with...also skill checks? Like you're not actually balancing the abilities of each class type, you're just arbitrating when spells will or will not work so the noncasters will feel relevant, except not really because the caster can make the same skill checks the noncaster can so...what was the point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
You're right. My bad. Everyone play a warlock. spells automatically succeed. No one in a world full of magic ever expects magic. Best game ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Why aren't you just making your disguise consist of wet clothes? Also note that to disguise yourself as the King as the rogue, you need to have the King's clothes. You also probably can't do it if the King is 6' and you're 5'1". The warlock still gets a shot.ActusRhesus posted: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: The point is that there are cheaper, better systems that are much more balanced. The rest is generally hyperbole for effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Couldn't the warlock just disguise himself as a wet or slighty snow-covered king if that was needed? That said, with all the nitpicking here about how disguising yourself works I really wouldn't want to play in a game where you need to care about half of those things (either as a martial or a spellcaster).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. My bad. Everyone play a warlock. spells automatically succeed. No one in a world full of magic ever expects magic. Best game ever. Well, sure. There are many ways to explain why magic wouldn't always work. But then take a step back and realize the game has given you the job of constantly adjudicating and balancing everything against why the caster can't constantly replicate and exceed non-casters' abilities. And given you no help. Instead of maybe playing a game where you don't have to do the designers' work for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Perhaps because "Everyone is just loving magic, ok?" is boring stroytelling if you are in a less hack and slash and more RP based game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. My bad. Everyone play a warlock. spells automatically succeed. No one in a world full of magic ever expects magic. Best game ever. Look, we get it - you don't think that you necessarily need magic to be good at being a Conman-type Rogue. So pick Rogue as your class, pick Charlatan as your background. Pick Persuasion as one of your Expertise skills. When you get to level 3, pick Assassin as your Rogue archetype. Or don't, if you don't think that you need the Assassin's archetype abilities to play a "conman" type since conmen can be played as being a real slick talker which doesn't really use "disguises" per se. If you're playing with feats, Actor seems like a good fit. For weapons: dual-wielded Shortswords are best for melee damage, Light Crossbow for ranged damage. That's it If your DM is story heavy as you say then the rest is up to you to roleplay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Perhaps because "Everyone is just loving magic, ok?" is boring stroytelling if you are in a less hack and slash and more RP based game? Why are you playing Next if it is a more RP based game? By its very nature D&D works better when it's focused on, uh, dungeons and dragons. Andrast fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Perhaps because "Everyone is just loving magic, ok?" is boring stroytelling if you are in a less hack and slash and more RP based game? Well that's the default setting in 5E and everything is built around that. Most of the time instead of giving you a unique mechanic to express abilities, they just give you an ability that directly references a spell, even if it's not technically magic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Perhaps because "Everyone is just loving magic, ok?" is boring stroytelling if you are in a less hack and slash and more RP based game? You should stop getting mad at people for pointing out how Next isn't this. You may as well have walked into the vampire the masquerade thread and asked for how to play a character who excels at miniatures based combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Getting mad presumes a much greater emotional investment to this thread. It is entirely possible to disagree with someone without being mad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Perhaps because "Everyone is just loving magic, ok?" is boring stroytelling if you are in a less hack and slash and more RP based game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:Remind us why you were asking for mechanical build advice for an RP-based campaign, again? Because it's possible for a game to incorporate both? Otherwise why have back stories at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're right. My bad. Everyone play a warlock. spells automatically succeed. No one in a world full of magic ever expects magic. Best game ever. Not even the point I was getting at, but whatever I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
It's kind of weird seeing a lot of the supposed solutions and arguments consist of "Well if I were DM'ing" or "My DM does it like this" or "Well if you think about the hypothetical situation in this specific way then it naturally makes sense and/or doesn't work. It'd be nice to have this decided by the mechanics of the game without even needing arbitration of any kind .
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because it's possible for a game to incorporate both? Otherwise why have back stories at all? Just pick whatever you were going to pick based on what you already decided on before you got here and cross your fingers that the DM has savvy NPCs coating the ground in a thin layer of flour at all times and relying on a buddy system so there's no chance that the wizard, warlock, bard, or whatever other caster in the party doesn't incidentally trample your niche with an invisibility or charm spell. And if so: great! We probably couldn't give you much more advice anyway, because you're clearly playing a (much better, more balanced) game that exists in an ecosystem foreign to anything described in the books here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:It's kind of weird seeing a lot of the supposed solutions and arguments consist of "Well if I were DM'ing" or "My DM does it like this" or "Well if you think about the hypothetical situation in this specific way then it naturally makes sense and/or doesn't work. It'd be nice to have this decided by the mechanics of the game without even needing arbitration of any kind . hasn't that always been the role of the DM though? Otherwise why have one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because it's possible for a game to incorporate both? Otherwise why have back stories at all? That's an excellent question, ActusRhesus. Why do games, tabletop RPGs in particular, have backstories? Why bother with all of that words and relationships when you can strip it all away, and make it a purely mechanical challenge of rolling dice to equal target numbers? The answer is basically because it's fun and makes the game more fun rather than less, but it also makes a very simple statement. Role-playing is capable of being completely disconnected from game mechanics. Want to roleplay a con-man? You can totally do that, and technically, you can do it without rolling a single die. Want to mechanically deceive someone into doing something? That's a different kettle of fish, and you'll find that if you want to mechanically deceive people, you'll be better off trying to do it as a spellcaster than as a rogue. Understand that that says something about the game more than it does about you, whatever your choice. But when you're asking for advice about playing a conman in this thread, we assume you're doing so mechanically, because doing it RP-wise is entirely up to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:hasn't that always been the role of the DM though? Otherwise why have one? If that's the way you DM or your DM functions, then you don't need us here in this thread. You have evolved beyond us, Amazo. Go forth into the stars and lie to NPCs as yet unimagined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:hasn't that always been the role of the DM though? Otherwise why have one? To play/control the npcs/monsters/dungeons/etc. I have no clue where the idea of "DM as rules arbiter" came from because it seems to me the players would also have some input as to how the game they're playing functioned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:hasn't that always been the role of the DM though? Otherwise why have one? It's the DM's job to facilitate the game, coming up with (most of) the plot and playing the part of the NPCs. One might argue that bending, breaking and rewriting the rules falls under "facilitating the game" but it really isn't. Sone people have just so gotten used the DM's "fixing" a game's mechanical aspects that they believe that it's a natural part of the process when what they should really be doing is playing well designed systems that jive well with the theme and type of game that the players want to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:hasn't that always been the role of the DM though? Otherwise why have one? The role of the DM is not to be an in-house game designer, no. It's to tell a story, have someone neutral play the bad guys in combat, and be a last-resort adjudicator of rule disputes. Making up rules on the fly because your game is woefully inadequate is not actually part of the DM's job description, it just gets thrust on them when people have REALLY low standards for their RPG rules. I thought that ProfessorCirno was being unfair when saying that you were shooting the messenger, but you seem to be upset (pretend I use a word that means upset but doesn't make you sound uncool, so please don't explain to me that you aren't ACTUALLY upset) that D&D is so magic-focused which none of us in this thread are responsible for writing it. Nobody thinks "everyone be spellcasters forever" is a good state of affairs. It is the best way to be a conman in D&D, though. If you don't care about the best way to be a conman in D&D, then it literally doesn't matter what choices you make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
quote: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". Kitchner posted:So what it boils down to is, if the DM makes bullshit calls then it's poo poo. Who would have thought it? So when a DM makes a call you don't like it's bad DMing, when a DM makes a call I don't like it's just verisimilitude. As has been pointed out, this is some bullshit that you literally just made up. Basically your entire post is. If a DM decides that you DON'T have to manually state "I duck through every doorway", "I make my arm bend so it looks like I'm picking up the pen in a natural way", "I make myself be taller, but not so my ankles are clipping through the floor, I want the bottom of the illusions' feet to hit the floor when mine do so the footsteps sound right" then that is a bad DM call. The fact that you're promoting bad DMing when it promotes your argument kind of means you're intellectually dishonest or maybe you're just a terrible DM. Like Jesus if you treat Disguise Self as a hologram that copies your actions perfectly no matter how bad it looks then yeah, you can't go up a staircase or look over a railing without someone noticing you're using magic, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you are capable of ascending a staircase. Are you seriously in here saying not only that gotcha-DM horseshit of the 10-foot-pole variety is not only acceptable but obvious enough through the RAW that Disguise Self doesn't present a balancing issue? quote: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. This also poses serious issues for level 9 assassin, but when I pointed out an example, you considered it very unfair. quote: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. Except as I established, it's not a good reason to be a rogue conman because using the level 11 for disguises is made irrelevant by the level 9 assassin and in fact the level 11 is entirely irrelevant for disguises unless you are not an assassin. This is not called "changing my story", this is called "rebutting your argument". 30.5 Days fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Listen guys Disguise Self has a lot of weaknesses if you assume the player can't ascend a staircase without ruining the illusion which is totally a reasonable thing to derive from the rules as written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
We did it, everyone! We found the one rules question so dumb even Mike Mearls will rule on it! https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/562656319761436672
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, where did the idea that the magic illusion wouldn't adapt to things like environment come from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:Out of curiosity, where did the idea that the magic illusion wouldn't adapt to things like environment come from? The following text for Disguise Self: "The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection. For example, if you use this spell to add a hat to your outfit, objects pass through the hat, and anyone who touches it would feel nothing or would feel your head and air. If you use this spell to appear thinner than you are, the hand of someone who reaches out to touch you would bump into your while it was seemingly still in midair. To discern that you are disguised, a creature can use its action to inspect your appearance and must succeed on an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC." Combine that with the power of motivated thinking and you end up with a disguise spell that precludes you from grasping a pen or standing outside on a day with weather of any sort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:The following text for Disguise Self: I can't put my finger on exactly why, but I feel like this could have been worded better? Maybe a more technical breakdown on how the illusion interacts with the world as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:The role of the DM is not to be an in-house game designer, no. It's to tell a story, have someone neutral play the bad guys in combat, and be a last-resort adjudicator of rule disputes. Making up rules on the fly because your game is woefully inadequate is not actually part of the DM's job description, it just gets thrust on them when people have REALLY low standards for their RPG rules. How is "the palace guards use scrolls of detect magic because everyone and there mother in this world is a magic user" rewriting the rules?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:I can't put my finger on exactly why, but I feel like this could have been worded better? Maybe a more technical breakdown on how the illusion interacts with the world as well. Physical inspection implies touching the target with something, but the actual check to determine if they determine there's an illusion is just to make an investigation check with no stipulation about touching, which leads DMs to do both, by having guards constantly passive checking people for disguise self spells but also by filling the environment with detritus like a katamari game so you can't move around. It could have just been "You cast a spell that makes you look like someone else. They can even be a little bigger than you. +whatever to your whatever roll to convince people you're someone else" but it wouldn't be real D&D if it wasn't filled with silly contrivances for DMs to hook onto.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
I actually really like that interpretation. It's a spell you can use to wave at those guards from a distance while looking like one of them, suddenly be dressed appropriately for the religious event you want into, or look like a bullywug to get through that swamp cave without being stopped. poo poo for actual up-close face-work, but a better tool than quick and dirty disguises made out whatever is to hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How is "the palace guards use scrolls of detect magic because everyone and there mother in this world is a magic user" rewriting the rules? I'm gonna go ahead and say because "the palace guards use scrolls of detect magic because everyone and there mother in this world is a magic user" isn't in the books anywhere. I wouldn't put it past the 5e team to use the wrong "their" though. Note that there is a viable difference between rewriting the rules and adding new rules of your own. If your world is all magic paranoia, that's fine, logical, and interesting. It isn't the default D&D setting though. You can tell because the text for Disguise Self doesn't say "This spell rarely works on palace guards, who are constantly chain-huffing from a big garbage bag of Detect Magic scrolls." theironjef fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
It also implies that if the caster is standing behind a window or in a phone booth where "physical inspection" is impossible, the spell will always fool everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
moths posted:It also implies that if the caster is standing behind a window or in a phone booth where "physical inspection" is impossible, the spell will always fool everyone. Until something flies right through his king hat, anyway. Probably like a low-flying indoor falcon or something. A good DM always includes slow, low-flying indoor falcons so that the spells don't get overpowered. I think it's in the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
No, the last paragraph says that a creature can use its action to inspect you and make an Int (investigation) check to see through it. They don't have to touch you, just notice that something about you is off. Touching just makes that easier. Probably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
I mean it says the spell fails to hold up on physical inspection, and then it says that inspection involves using an action and doing an int (investigation) check. Regardless, the fact that you're spending an action means it's not a passive thing that random guards just do as you pass them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How is "the palace guards use scrolls of detect magic because everyone and there mother in this world is a magic user" rewriting the rules? Allowing palace guards (presumably fighters) to use scrolls despite them needing to have the spells on their class list to be able to cast them would be rewriting the rules. Aside from that, detecting magic in a world crazy-full of magic would only marginally help you identify who has disguise self cast on them. Also note that the default D&D setting does not assume easy access to even the most common of magic items.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
autocorrect does not merge with grammar check. sue me. but way to focus on one incorrect word rather than the point. Which is it is not "changing the rules" to give your NPCs tools that are explicitly allowed for in the rules. And the guards just took a level of caster. Why not? Everyone else has to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:39
|
|