|
goatface posted: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. It says two things. One is that the spell doesn't hold up to physical inspection, the other is that creatures can detect it with an Investigation check. The one follows the other, leading the reader to believe that the check must be a physical check made by the creature, or based on evidence the creature sees, like a hat-falcon interaction. There is no actual grammatical reason for that to be the case though. Nothing stops a creature from using every action it has to determine that things near it are actually what they appear to be. That's the plot of "They Live".
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Just check passive perception for guards and such people to notice something's off and investigate more closely. Stick it at 15 as well, adjusted for how they're acting, good guards and scouts should be able to hit that. The spell isn't meant to be perfect, so they should be being careful about where and how they use it. If they're not, gently caress them up. It's a terribly written spell, but most of them are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Yeah dude we have argued this back and forth now. I tried to point out you came across as offish and unhelpful, and you've responded to that with being offish. I've explained a number of pretty realistic, non-gotcha scenarios where the disguise spell won't work as you're describing but you're increasingly saying I've said things I've never said. So let's just call it we agree to disagree and get back to more important topics like who would win between an army of skeleton elephant and female wizards each pregnant with a sacrificial fetus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:autocorrect does not merge with grammar check. sue me. You'll note I addressed that part in the second part of my post, where I said this: "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." Ignoring the fact that this is a laughable solution (yes, let's carry 24 scrolls of detect magic for every 4-hour shift), yes, it is a valid one. It's not particularly difficult to find ways to gently caress over a 1st level spell that has significant drawbacks. Are you not getting that it's a pretty poo poo system when you have to do this much work to make disguise self strictly worse than a rogue using the disguise skill? Edit: unrelated, but I find it funny that detect magic doesn't let you detect a creature that has invisibility cast on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:autocorrect does not merge with grammar check. sue me. I'm not home to check for sure but i would wager because keeping even a minor garrison stocked with enough detect magic scrolls for this plan would bankrupt a country in a week or so. If they all have a caster level then they could do it, but they would have to set up a guard rotation to deal with all the ritual casting. Basically, take the amount of normal guards and double it and then spend the money to train them all at being a level 1 caster. All this work just to thwart a first level spell and really anger a player. Pro dming. Good game design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:autocorrect does not merge with grammar check. sue me. Here, I'll quote myself for you. That way you can see past the one part where I was insulting you to the answer you were asking about : 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." So the answer you want is "It's not changing the rules. It's adding new rules not found in the original book." Effectively, if you find yourself starting a sentence, especially an argument sentence with anything from a list of: 1. In our games 2. A smart DM will 3. The way I do it 4. Logically, that means 5. And the guards just You're talking about added rules. I think there's room in this forum for houserule discussion. Lord knows the information in the books is mighty thin on the ground. But it's best phrased as requests for houserules or discussions of houserules, because this isn't a Rabbinical council and arguing over correct literal interpretation of the sacred 5e texts is pointless. Your very original question is probably best answered by a houserule, since the books won't provide what you want, regardless of how hard you shake them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
The best thing to come from the last three pages is the idea of a society so paranoid of magical disguise, that they have created an elaborate greeting ritual whereby you knock the other persons hat off in welcoming. "Welcome to the castle...", *knocks fedora to the ground*, "Sir Whiteby."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The best thing to come from the last three pages is the idea of a society so paranoid of magical disguise, that they have created an elaborate greeting ritual whereby you knock the other persons hat off in welcoming. It's all connected. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The best thing to come from the last three pages is the idea of a society so paranoid of magical disguise, that they have created an elaborate greeting ritual whereby you knock the other persons hat off in welcoming. Oh man with a whole new subclass of serfs, the "hat retrieval peasant." And haberdashers advertising of how their wares are especially resistant to "the wear and tear of being constantly dashed to the ground by zealous garden party guards." Also every chamber in the palace is just wall to wall chandeliers terminating about six and a half feet off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Guard: PAPERS CITIZEN! Citizen: *Removes hat with papers stuck inside and hands it over* Guard: VERY GOOD. CARRY ON. Citizen: Cripes, I'm glad I'm not someone trying to sneak in with low level magic!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
It's very analogous to the modern day. The government imposes a sales tax/hat knocking ordinance intending to catch criminals, but it only bothers the lower classes. Meanwhile, rich people/actual wizards are just creating offshore accounts/casting Invisibility to skip the whole rigamarole, and the little people are kept in their place. Wake up sheeple/serfles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:I can't put my finger on exactly why, but I feel like this could have been worded better?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
The Martial-classes disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing wizardry. Let the arcane-classes tremble at a mundane revolution! The non-casters have nothing to lose but their magically enchanted chains. They have a world to win. - The Martialist Manifesto
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Also, uh, what stops warlocks from using their skills too? gradenko_2000 posted: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. IT BEGINS posted:The point is that there are cheaper, better systems that are much more balanced. OneThousandMonkeys posted: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. Man, if only some goon was currently testing a d20-based game where casters and non-casters ran off the same mechanics for combat and non-combat, rather than [casters just being better X times per day/non-casters being just as good but only at much higher levels.] Oh, wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Hey guys, I just wanted to kind of share my character's background and his general stats and see if yall have an suggestions on how to proceed as he levels up. Keep in mind that while everyone else in my party char genned with the correct rules (roll 4 keep top 3 + reallocation) I went with an older style of char gen and simply rolled 3 for each stat down the line. I like to let the dice decide what kind of character I play even if that means playing a gimp since I feel it forces you to be a little more creative with the character. So I'm playing a Human Ranger. After Human bonuses his stat line is: STR 12 DEX 15 CON 10 INT 8 WIS 10 CHA 11 He fights with a finesse one hander and a buckler and currently has the dueling trait for a total of 18 AC. So yeah, Herbert. He's an older gentleman who used to work for the government as a tax assessor. Herbert spent the grand majority of his career abusing tax loopholes to profiteer and broker deals (re:blackmail) all the while making prodigious use of his forgery skills to cover his tracks as he went. Like all good things his criminal activities came to an end however when he was cornered and while they couldn't prove anything they had strong suspicions regarding his activities. In the end they decided to furlough him for 5 years at which point his enemies also decided to seek him out for some tax "auditing". Determined to return to his carefree easy money making scheme he resolved himself to survive the next 5 years so that he could return and promptly escaped into the forest where he became something of a hermit, learning how to scrape a living in the wilderness. Whilst living among the fauna and flora he found that not only was he absolutely terrible at fighting, but getting attacked hurt a lot. This prompted him to carve for himself a crudely hewn set of "plate armor" from the local trees found only deep within the forest. He also managed to approximate a sword like tool and his fancy of what amounted to a buckler. Though his appearance resembles that of a knight due to the bulky nature of his armor au natural, in truth it's more of a protective carapace intended to soak his combat incompetence. I'm coming up on level 3 and I'm thinking I'll have him pick up a pet of some sort to cover the fact that with only a +2 dex mod hitting stuff is somewhat difficult at times. Since pets replace the character's attack action right? And they use their own bonuses/statlines?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
just play a warlock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Most (if not all) of the available beasts won't have a better chance to hit, and some hit for 1 damage. Could do something with flyby to do the "fly in from 30 feet up, attack, fly out" thing, or something with poison to try and eke some more damage out. Pack tactics could work to cancel out the poor aim, but the damage is still going to be weak. I guess that means Wolf. edit - A Giant Badger has multi-attack. I'm honestly not sure what that does when you tell it to use the attack action. Can it attack twice? Can it attack four times at level 11? Can you take a swarm as an animal companion? goatface fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
"Verisimilitude" and CharOp aside, I don't think ActusRhesus is too far off from a narrative perspective. I forget who said this originally, but the degree of "magical thinking" involved in a D&D world really would have to be insane, given what some spells do, even low level ones...quote:Eberron is good but even it doesn't go anywhere in depth to reflect just how incredibly incomprehensibly different a world with D&D magic would be from ours. I could even see this evolving in such a fashion that the guards are only checking for magical disguises, because it's such a ludicrous idea that someone would just rouge their face and put on a real hat with false papers in it to break into the castle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:I could even see this evolving in such a fashion that the guards are only checking for magical disguises, because it's such a ludicrous idea that someone would just rouge their face and put on a real hat with false papers in it to break into the castle. Wow, like a magic version of Gattaca. That'd be awesome. "It's impossible for there to be a rogue in this room, it's way up a wall! Only wizards can fly!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
goatface posted:A Giant Badger has multi-attack. I'm honestly not sure what that does when you tell it to use the attack action. Can it attack twice? Can it attack four times at level 11? It should be able to - it doesn't say the other attack takes any sort of separate action. Also sadly no bat swarms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:just play a warlock. You know, I actually had some sympathy for you, since you seem to be having some difficulty with the idea that the system you're playing with isn't well suited to the kind of game you seem to want to play (a problem which can be mitigated but not eliminated with good DMing and a cooperative group), and I've experienced that kind of frustration myself. But this post right here threw that all out the window. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Well, that's the advice I got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well, that's the advice I got. The difference being is that there is no mechanical support to play a good ranger.   ranger buddy
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well, that's the advice I got. Oh gently caress off. Laphroaig posted:There is no build advice to give. There are no builds. Rogue, normal non-magic guy, is basically kind of crap compared to the other options that do the same things. gradenko_2000 posted:"I want to make a Rogue who is also a con man, and he doesn't use magic" Victorkm posted:Or you could be a valour bard and just choose to not cast or memorize spells, have better weapons and armor, choose disguise, persuasion, deception etc as expertise, and also get bardic inspiration die to your skill checks. Just because you didn't like the answers people gave doesn't mean you should pretend they don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Just play Dark Sun where there is no magic, problem solved*. (Just kidding, but really everyone should play more games set in Dark Sun, it's a kickin' rad setting)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Oh gently caress off. Why are you so angry about this? Also, I was looking for a little more than "write rogue on character sheet. Pick assassin." Skill expertise? Feat Selection? Benefits to one race vs. another? I get it, this game isn't as micro-managey as 3.5 was. But I was looking for some practical advice from people who have actually played the class, not "hey the rule book says assassin gets to use disguises so pick that." I can read. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The difference being is that there is no mechanical support to play a good ranger. It's cool, just hold out 'til level 20 to get that sweet +2 or +3 damage on one attack against some enemies. That'll show everyone for laughing at your ranger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
I'm totally down with a honey badger for a pet. I'm not too concerned with pulling my weight in the party so much as bringing us more opportunities for narrative fun though. We have a couple power gamer dudes with beastly characters, so we're pretty set on that end I feel like. I just want to make the game fun and memorable. e: me and a buddy who is playing a rogue have already threatened to audit the tax records of the hamlet we arrived at if they didn't increase our reward for going to find their stolen heirlooms. hi5 party full of neutral/evil types Razzled fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Why are you so angry about this? Why do you act so butthurt about this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Well, that's the advice I got. And then you said no magic, and the conversation forked. In one fork you got the advice you asked for as posted above, which you seem to have ignored in favor of the other fork, which consisted of several people including yourself trying to make excuses why a system that doesn't do what you want very well can still be used to do what you want, and being kind of jerky about it. Which basically recapitulates this whole drat 350 page thread, if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The difference being is that there is no mechanical support to play a good ranger. our 3.5 Ranger player was a monster once she realized how to play her class. I haven't looked at the 5.0 ranger rules, but is it really that bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Razzled posted:I'm totally down with a honey badger for a pet. I'm not too concerned with pulling my weight in the party so much as bringing us more opportunities for narrative fun though. We have a couple power gamer dudes with beastly characters, so we're pretty set on that end I feel like. I just want to make the game fun and memorable. What do you think of multiclassing as an alternative? Picking up something like Sneak Attack from the Rogue could go a ways towards shoring up your damage if you can somehow get advantage consistently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:And then you said no magic, and the conversation forked. In one fork you got the advice you asked for as posted above, which you seem to have ignored in favor of the other fork, which consisted of several people including yourself trying to make excuses why a system that doesn't do what you want very well can still be used to do what you want, and being kind of jerky about it. Which basically recapitulates this whole drat 350 page thread, if you think about it. how is pointing out that making NPCs who are not retarded is not "rewriting the rules" being a jerk? A lot of the "just be a warlock...magic users are always better" presumes a DM who makes stupid NPCs. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:What do you think of multiclassing as an alternative? Picking up something like Sneak Attack from the Rogue could go a ways towards shoring up your damage if you can somehow get advantage consistently. get pet. use pet to set up advantage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Why are you so angry about this? You can't just make a rogue by announcing it's time and slamming repetitive numbers on a sheet, you gotta finesses that concept first. Maybe get it a few drinks. Also whoa. Not there. What are you even doing? Is... is that the rules? Get those out of there, it's not even CLOSE to your birthday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:our 3.5 Ranger player was a monster once she realized how to play her class. I haven't looked at the 5.0 ranger rules, but is it really that bad? It's a crazy underwhelming class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
The Giant Badger is also pretty cool because he has a burrow speed and is medium sized. That means his tunnels are probably big enough for you to follow him...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:To repeat myself: its level 20 capstone is "+2 or +3 attack or damage on one attack per round against some creatures". hmm...in our 3.5 game we played around with feats and such that gave her a butt ton of extra arrows, plus some stuff that let her send her animal to bite people in the crotch in the same turn. (And I cheated somewhat and gently steered her towards choosing "preferred foes" that I knew she'd be seeing a lot of.) Honestly, the most underwhelming player in our group was the sorcerer because she had no idea how to play her class and was expecting to be able to do 500 points of damage as a level 2. I'm not in love with the elimination of feats, as that was always a really fun way to get more character customization. First thought looking through rule book: "What? no feats?" ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:What do you think of multiclassing as an alternative? Picking up something like Sneak Attack from the Rogue could go a ways towards shoring up your damage if you can somehow get advantage consistently. Yeah I definitely wanted to multi-class. I only really ended up with Ranger because my STR was too low for fighter and I wanted some survivability. Ranger was the next best option since I took dueling and a buckler. Rogue would also definitely mesh with my Criminal/Charlatan background. I'll probably multi class after Ranger 3 since I don't think 4 is much of anything right? quote:The Giant Badger is also pretty cool because he has a burrow speed and is medium sized. That means his tunnels are probably big enough for you to follow him... This just made me really excited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, I was looking for a little more than "write rogue on character sheet. Pick assassin." Skill expertise? Feat Selection? Benefits to one race vs. another? I get it, this game isn't as micro-managey as 3.5 was. But I was looking for some practical advice from people who have actually played the class, not "hey the rule book says assassin gets to use disguises so pick that." I can read. Should I just empty-quote gradenko again? gradenko_2000 posted:"I want to make a Rogue who is also a con man, and he doesn't use magic" I've played this class. There's not a whole lot to it. My experience playing the class picking all 'RP' options was that I basically had the same effectiveness as the damage-focused Rogue in the one-shot I ran. Everything else was just skill use outside of combat, which is going to vary heavily between campaigns. Welcome to mundanes in 5E. Super-Edit: I had just as much success playing a stealthy rogue as this cleric, if not more. IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 21:30
|
|