Page 4 of 50 FirstFirst 123456789101112131429 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    This is the crux of what we disagree on. I don't see a reason that a Rogue has to be straight-jacketed into a single role when it could instead easily be used to represent a broad range of characters. You clearly disagree. I don't understand what you see in limiting character options when an equally viable design could be used that would result in a broader range of character options. Could you explain to me why you feel that limiting what a class can represent will result in a better game, especially in light of the fact that WotC does not seem likely to create a wide enough range of base classes to cover characters I might want to play?

    Should they create a wide enough range of classes that can allow me to express a range of characters, then I won't have an issue, as I said above. But currently, I don't believe they plan to introduce such a wide range of classes, and they instead intend to use few classes to represent many characters. Do you have a reason to believe that they will create a broad range of classes, rather than sticking to the limited range they've specified in earlier information releases?

    I would be just as irritated if they gave Wizards an ability that forced them all to come from a wizard college, or if they gave Fighters and ability that made them all into soldiers. There is no reason that Thieves' Cant shouldn't be on a background, rather than on the class itself, unless one is seeking to specifically limit what the Rogue class can be. You seem to be seeking to limit the Rogue class in this way.
    Ah, but you're only looking at one side of the issue. The more you broaden what a class can do, the more you water down what classes mean as a whole. If you took a wizard to be anyone that can cast arcane spells, then you would remove sorcerers, warlocks, and any other kind of arcane caster from the game entirely. On the other hand, if you define the rogue more, then you allow for more classes to be made that would otherwise be redundant with the rogue. As those classes become more and more well-defined, you become more and more able to give those classes unique, interesting abilities that only make sense with the reduced scope of that class.

    I don't mean to say that we need to be extremely strict with how classes are defined. Using your example, you say you would be annoyed if wizards were set to all come from a wizard's college. Learning spells through long hours of study and application of logic and rigor naturally fits a background of going to a wizarding school, but it doesn't lock you into it. You could just as easily have a wizard that found some ancient tome, and spent hours learning spells from it instead of learning from a teacher. Or you could have one who discovered magic independently, or maybe you learned your craft directly from a master, or any other of many different possibilities.

    However, as different as these background sound, they all agree that the Wizard picked up certain skills while he was studying. They agree that he has a spellbook, that he learns magic from study, that he can cast rituals, and so on. I would say that the Thieves' Cant falls into this category as well.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    - I have no problem with Thieves' Cant if there are other classes which can be used to represent my characters.

    - I don't believe that WotC is planning to create other classes; I believe they intend for the Rogue class to be used for every "Sneaky" character.

    - I am highly limited in what kind of characters I can play if every single one of them is required to have a thorough knowledge of the criminal underworld.

    - I don't think that Thieves' Cant should be a required ability for every "Sneaky" character because it acts as a limiter for what I'm allowed to play.

    I hope this makes my concerns clear. In theory, I have no issue with the ability. However, in reality, I have an issue with Thieves' Cant. I'll repeat my questions; why are you confidant they WotC will change their design policy and release a large number of base classes, instead of relying on customizable backgrounds and a limited number of base classes? If WotC does not plan on releasing classes like the "Assassin", "Trapsmith", "Spy", etc, do you agree that Thieves' Cant should be a background?

    EDIT - A third question;
    Why do you think that the things which make individuals distinct from each other should be different base classes, instead of different backgrounds? (which is what I'm advocating for, on the basis that it fits the current design)
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-17 at 11:35 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Except that I can learn how to pick pockets, cut purses, pick locks, and burgle houses, all without ever communicating with another thief. It should be a background, not an inherent part of the class.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Except that I can learn how to pick pockets, cut purses, pick locks, and burgle houses, all without ever communicating with another thief. It should be a background, not an inherent part of the class.
    Or they could just be embracing the whole mechanical enforcement of stereotypes thing. Next round, the Dwarf will say "Must be an alcoholic" and "Must speak with a bad scottish accent"

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    They have not yet released any sort of multi classing rules, but I can pretty much guarantee it won't work like it does in 3e. My guess, It'll either be something like 4e where you can kinda sort get other class features, or like 2e where you can have a sort of dual advancement type deal.
    Actually, they briefly mention you can multiclass like 3E, pg 7 of the new Class PDF under Warlocks: "Unless you have spellcasting from another source:", how you are getting another source unless you multiclass?

    So it proves we have 3.5 version to me.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    why are you confidant they WotC will change their design policy and release a large number of base classes, instead of relying on customizable backgrounds and a limited number of base classes?
    Er, I don't think they will change their design philosophy, I think they will continue making lots of classes as they have since 3rd edition. If anything, were they to focus on a small number of classes that cover a lot of areas, that would be the change. Even looking at sneaky characters, there's also the Ranger, the Assassin, the Bard, the Ninja, the Scout, the Shadowcaster, and the Lurk.

    And even if you don't want to fit into one of those classes, you can choose another class, and find a background, choose feats, and pick skills to improve your sneakiness. I think the problem here is more that you're tied to the "Rogue = Sneaky" and inversely, "Sneaky = Rogue", when neither has to necessarily be the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    If WotC does not plan on releasing classes like the "Assassin", "Trapsmith", "Spy", etc, do you agree that Thieves' Cant should be a background?
    Trapsmith and Spy are skills, not classes. If WotC really did plan to not release Assassins, Rangers, and so on, and instead to lump all of those archetypes into the Rogue, then yes I would expect them to remove Thieves' Cant, at least from the base class. However, I would say that the fact that Thieves' Cant is in there at all is proof that they do want to make classes more narrow, as they have in the past, which leads me to believe that the other classes will be put in. We've already seen this with the Wizard, who instead of being made broad, was made narrow, and now we have the Warlock and the Sorcerer to fill those other niches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    EDIT - A third question;
    Why do you think that the things which make individuals distinct from each other should be different base classes, instead of different backgrounds? (which is what I'm advocating for, on the basis that it fits the current design)
    Why do you think that backgrounds should be the only way to make individuals distinct?

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Actually, they briefly mention you can multiclass like 3E, pg 7 of the new Class PDF under Warlocks: "Unless you have spellcasting from another source:", how you are getting another source unless you multiclass?

    So it proves we have 3.5 version to me.
    You can get spells from feats. Only minor so far, but we might be getting higher level spellcasting at higher level feats.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-08-17 at 11:58 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I would say the existence of Thieves' Cant either indicates that WotC intends to create a massive number of highly specialized classes, or that they made a design mistake. From what I have read, the developers do not intend to release a massive number of highly specialized classes. No other classes in the material we have seen have been highly specialized with regard to character background - there are mechanical specializations, as you have noted, but there is nothing that forces a Fighter to be a soldier. There is something that forces the Rogue to be a very specific type of criminal.

    Spoiler
    Show
    ""The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition." Specifically mentioned by WotC staff so far are: fighter, cleric, wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, paladin, psion, barbarian, monk, druid, warlord, assassin, rogue.", source


    The Rogue in 3.5 was much broader in what characters it could represent, because it wasn't mechanically tied to a stereotype, the way the D&D Next Rogue is with Thieves' Cant. This significantly broader class existed alongside other similarly broad classes. The only base class that had a constraint on character background was the Druid (with Druidic as a specific language known to every Druid), which isn't well thought out either.

    I think that backgrounds should be used to represent a character's background. In this case, my character's background is determined by the class I've selected, rather than the background I'd like to select. Why do you think that a class should determine a very significant part of a character's history, rather than allowing a player to choose their own background?

    We're actually in agreement for the most part. We both agree that Thieves' Cant is acceptable if there are enough classes around that many characters are feasible. I simply don't believe that WotC will release enough classes to accomplish this (as it seems they're generally relying on backgrounds for this sort of thing in D&D Next), while you do. I believe that placing Thieves' Cant into a "Criminal" background that anyone can select, regardless of class (surely there are criminals out there in other classes who can read a gang sign) is a more appropriate fit with the design philosophy of D&D Next.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 12:37 AM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way. If you want to make a Wizard that learned his magic from raw, magical talent, you don't complain that the Wizard Class has rules for this stupid "spellbook" thing, you instead roll a sorcerer. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into a criminal background, then you should be playing a different class. Your Half-Orc should be an Assassin. Your Elf should be a Ranger. Your bounty hunter sounds like he'd have come from a criminal background, though he could just as easily be a fighter if you don't want to go that route.

    Instead of trying to force the class to fit your character, you should choose a more appropriate class. If you think there is a significant archetype that the current classes don't cover, then that is a class that should be made, rather than ham-fisting some other class to fit that role as well.
    So, in 3e, if I wanted to play a samurai, I must, must use Complete Warrior's Samurai or perhaps Oriental Adventure's? I couldn't play a Warblade or Swordsage and just call myself a "samurai". I couldn't be a monk/paladin multiclass and call myself a "samurai"? (Miko sounds like a nice name. )

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    So, in 3e, if I wanted to play a samurai, I must, must use Complete Warrior's Samurai or perhaps Oriental Adventure's? I couldn't play a Warblade or Swordsage and just call myself a "samurai". I couldn't be a monk/paladin multiclass and call myself a "samurai"? (Miko sounds like a nice name. )
    That's not what I'm saying whatsoever. Samurai is a perfectly meaningless title. It's basically just Japanese for "Knight". There are certainly differences between the fighting styles of Japan and Europe, but they're not significant enough to justify different classes. It seems like exactly the kind of thing that might turn up as a sub-class of a fighter, just like a Blademaster or such might.


    Beyond that, I think the biggest disconnect we're having here is how much Thieves' Cant defines your character. Nowhere in the description of Thieves' Cant does it say you're actually a thief, only that you picked up their language. You could easily be a freedom-fighter who uses dirty tactics and Thieves' Cant to communicate with other rebels. Or you could be a spy who learned Thieves' Cant so that he can easily contact informants or thieves when the need arises (and it often will!). Or maybe your character is part of some other sect of cunning, sneaky-types who use a secret language to communicate.

    My question is, how is Thieves' Cant more restrictive than a wizard's spellbook and method of preparation? Or a warlocks pacts? Or a sorcerer's bloodline? Or a Fighter's combat training? Or a Cleric's domain?
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Actually, they briefly mention you can multiclass like 3E, pg 7 of the new Class PDF under Warlocks: "Unless you have spellcasting from another source:", how you are getting another source unless you multiclass?

    So it proves we have 3.5 version to me.
    No, no, that doesn't prove anything. The English language doesn't work like that. The only thing stated or implied there is that it may be possible to gain spellcasting from another source. Nothing more, nothing less. Considering we know two ways(feats and race) to gain spellcasting already, that's not much. It doesn't imply multiclassing, and it certainly doesn't imply 3e style multiclassing. And considering the base +2 weapon attack bonus, and slow progression, we have a definite implication we will NOT have 3e style multiclassing.

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Well they are their own classes. Just with prereqs. Doesn't it seem silly to have two classes, say Rogue A and Rogue B, with identical progressions for the first eight levels before they branch out and get different abilities?
    They(PrCs) really are not their own classes, as you can't make a character who just has a PrC, you must have at least one base class, and no I don't think the shift in progression is silly.

    Here's the problem with PrC's, you have no idea how they will interact with the rest of the game content. You don't know how their abilities will interact with the rest of the classes in the game, past and future, and you certainly don't know how quickly they can gain the prerequisites. If you have an alternate class feature, you can know that a character who has ability a, is say a level 8 rogue. For a PrC you have no idea what the player did before the PrC, and thus you can't balance the PrC's abilities.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    They have not yet released any sort of multi classing rules, but I can pretty much guarantee it won't work like it does in 3e. My guess, It'll either be something like 4e where you can kinda sort get other class features, or like 2e where you can have a sort of dual advancement type deal.
    Quote Originally Posted by enworld
    Multiclassing

    Multiclassing: "...here's what we have in mind. When you gain a level, you can choose any class and gain a level in that class, much in the same way that it functioned in 3rd Edition. Of course, those of you who play or played 3E know that there can sometimes be issues with this, and if you aren't careful you can build a character that struggles with effectiveness at higher levels. However, there's a lot of good that comes out of this system, including organic character growth, expansive character building options without the need for large swathes of material, and the ability to express your character's specialties through a unique mix of classes." - Rodney Thompson.
    Admittedly not neccessarily up-to-date.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I think Thieves' Cant is in there on purpose as a test. Like when everyone wondered where the Cleric's Turn Undead was, they want to see what playtesters consider necessary to D&D, even if it isn't used much in actual play.

    That said, I don't like it. A class should be what your character does, not what they are. If you make a bodyguard/enforcer for the criminal underground Fighter may be a class that's the best fit for your idea, but they would be much more likely to know the Cant than a Gentleman Thief who took to it as an escape from the ennui of High Society.
    Now with half the calories!

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Ah, but you're only looking at one side of the issue. The more you broaden what a class can do, the more you water down what classes mean as a whole. If you took a wizard to be anyone that can cast arcane spells, then you would remove sorcerers, warlocks, and any other kind of arcane caster from the game entirely. On the other hand, if you define the rogue more, then you allow for more classes to be made that would otherwise be redundant with the rogue. As those classes become more and more well-defined, you become more and more able to give those classes unique, interesting abilities that only make sense with the reduced scope of that class.
    I just want to point out that "Arcane caster" is a concept MUCH broader in scope and potential mechanical implications than "Rogue". If anything, they needed to limit Wizard fluff further, and leave the rogue's fluff open.

    There's only so many things you can give to a mundane rogue without making people scratch their heads and 'wtf' at you. Trying to make for example, a Swashbuckler, or a Scout, ends up making some very diluted classes that would have been better off just being a part of the Rogue in the first place. I mean this is the whole reason we got the name "Rogue" instead of "Thief", so you could play a larger range of concepts with the same class.

    On the other extreme, the Wizard, whose main defining feature is "Arcane spellcaster who studies anything and everything" gets to do anything and everything that the developers think of, because arcane magic can do anything and everything. His spells known let him do more different things than any other class, and as more material gets released, that will only get worse.

    If the Wizard was going to be the Generalist who knows everything, he should be closer to the Warlock, getting to learn every ritual spell out there, but non-rituals he gets restricted to lower level spells. Other classes would cover the specialist roles for specific types of magic (for example a Shapeshifter/Transmuter, and Abjurer, a Blaster, etc), which aren't nearly as flexible/studious/whatever, but are each much better at their chosen school of magic.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  14. - Top - End - #104
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    My question is, how is Thieves' Cant more restrictive than a wizard's spellbook and method of preparation? Or a warlocks pacts? Or a sorcerer's bloodline? Or a Fighter's combat training? Or a Cleric's domain?
    In order for you to have a character with Thieves' Cant which makes sense, these things need to be true;

    - You've grown up in a literate, relatively civilized society.

    - Within this society, there is a significantly large criminal underworld, which all criminals are intimately familiar with.

    - Your character has to have been intimately familiar with the slang of this criminal underworld.

    - It is impossible for any other class to reach your level of familiarity with the slang of this criminal underworld.

    Now here are the restrictions that the mechanics of a Fighter puts on me;

    - You are skilled with weapons.

    These are not comparable restrictions. A Fighter puts almost no restrictions on my character; a Rogue puts many, many restrictions on my character.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 09:01 AM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    In order for you to have a character with Thieves' Cant which makes sense, these things need to be true;

    - You've grown up in a literate, relatively civilized society.

    These are not comparable restrictions. A Fighter puts almost no restrictions on my character; a Rogue puts many, many restrictions on my character.
    Whoa, why does Thieve's Cant require a literate/civilized society?

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I'm not necessarily a fan of Thieve's Cant, but I can't understand why everyone is this upset over it. Thieve's Cant is as easy as anything else to refluff, in some way, you are familiar with slang and doublespeak. It's still relatively wide open. Now, I'd be fine if they slipped it into the thief background, in fact, that might still be a better option(or make it a language anyone can learn), but I don't think they need to.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Whoa, why does Thieve's Cant require a literate/civilized society?
    Because, as I understand it, it's a language with both a written and oral components. An Orc tribe living on the caldera of some volcano might not even use pictograms, but somehow their Rogues can read and decode hidden messages in Thieve's Cant.

    Still, it's a somewhat weak objection; unless you're a 3.5 Barbarian, everyone in D&D is assumed to be literate.

    My main objection is that it makes perfect sense... for the Thief class. Rogue is intentionally vague; unlike how Magic User became the much more specific Wizard, Thief was made to be more widely applicable on purpose editions ago. There really doesn't seem to be a good reason to backslide now.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    In order for you to have a character with Thieves' Cant which makes sense, these things need to be true;

    - You've grown up in a literate, relatively civilized society.
    Who ever said you had to grow up in this society? It does necessitate that one had to exist, but nothing about you growing up there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    - Within this society, there is a significantly large criminal underworld, which all criminals are intimately familiar with.
    You don't need a large criminal underworld to have Thieves' Cant. What you need, is a large number of criminals, who have reason to want to talk to each other without anyone else noticing. I find it had to believe that there are that many settings that wouldn't fit this requirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    - Your character has to have been intimately familiar with the slang of this criminal underworld.
    Yes, which could happen in any number of ways. A gentlemanly thief doesn't just jump out of bed one day and steal the crown jewels. He needs to spend a long time learning how to open locks, sneak around, disarm traps, bluff guards, and fight dirty. Where do you think he learned all of this, a book?

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    - It is impossible for any other class to reach your level of familiarity with the slang of this criminal underworld.
    This I don't think should be true. It should be possible for other characters to learn Thieves' Cant just like any other language, but we don't have all of the rules for that. It would also make sense to spread out the Thieves' Cant a bit more.

    I don't have any problem with giving the thieves' cant to a background, I simply don't see why it can't be on the rogue, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Now here are the restrictions that the mechanics of a Fighter puts on me;

    - You are skilled with weapons.

    These are not comparable restrictions. A Fighter puts almost no restrictions on my character; a Rogue puts many, many restrictions on my character.
    This is actually another problem that I hadn't brought up yet. The fighter has even worse issues with this than the rogue. I'd actually far prefer to see the fighter be narrowed in scope a lot, because currently, the fighter seems to make just about every other martial character obsolete. If it were up to me, a fighter would be required to have learned a "school" of combat. Where and how he learned that school would still be up for debate, but it would make the fighter more of the wizard of martial classes. They learn by study and rigorous practice.

    This would make other classes, like the Barbarian and the Monk much more able to grab a part of the martial pie, as it were, instead of forcing them to become another kind of spellcaster, as they were in 4E.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Honestly, I'd much rather have just a few classes: Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, and Fighter, or whatever and have each class be flexible enough to become each type of the subtypes. Actually they already seem to be moving to this method which will be odd when they start bringing in classes like the Paladin (which already seems pretty well covered by the Cleric War archetype)

    Now if Combat Superiority becomes as fantastic a combat resource as the devs seem to want to make it (based on them talking it up rather than it's actual usefulness), then it makes far more sense to me to use that whole specialization/background mechanic to create the barbarian/monk classes than to try and strike gold again and again.

    'Cause really, to me a Barbarian is really defined as prioritizing damage and having a rage mechanic. Damaging CS do this already, and Rage can be a quick add to a background ability. And a monk uses their fists and has some sort of mass of attacks ability. Well, again mass of attacks can be done by CS and Unarmed Combatant ability can allow their fists to act like finesse weapons.

    Now as to Thieves Cant, I don't really hate it. But it does make far more sense as a Background ability maybe for Professional Criminal background or something.
    Last edited by Dienekes; 2012-08-18 at 11:58 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Actually, they briefly mention you can multiclass like 3E, pg 7 of the new Class PDF under Warlocks: "Unless you have spellcasting from another source:", how you are getting another source unless you multiclass?

    So it proves we have 3.5 version to me.
    Even if multiclassing exists, there's no reason to presume it exists as it did in 3.x. Multiclassing has existed in just about *every* version of D&D, if you accept "Elf" as a multiclass in Basic. "Pick a different class every time you level" only exists in 3.x.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    You don't need a large criminal underworld to have Thieves' Cant. What you need, is a large number of criminals, who have reason to want to talk to each other without anyone else noticing. I find it had to believe that there are that many settings that wouldn't fit this requirement.
    You need to have a large number of criminals who have organized to the extent that they have developed their own sekret speshial language which no one else can ever crack. And who have inducted every Rogue, in every city, of every age, by teaching them this sekret speshial language. Incidentally, this also ensures that classes are in-game constructs (There's a clear, in-game distinction between a Rogue and a Fighter with the Thug background who's had a criminal history). I can't actually think of any published setting where there's a magical cabal of criminals that all speak the same code across every city, in every country, with no other person breaking the code. It's comical how silly that idea is, but that's what Thieves' Cant, by RAW, currently is.

    "Among thieves, there is a secret language, a way of communicating between members of the criminal underworld that rogues know and use. Creatures hearing you converse in Thieves’ Cant might think you say one thing when you are actually saying something else entirely.

    Benefit:You have learned the secret language of thieves."

    Name me a setting that actually has a "secret language of thieves"? Because off the top of my head, established settings like FR, Eberron, Golarion, Dark Sun, etc. don't have a secret language of thieves.

    Yes, which could happen in any number of ways. A gentlemanly thief doesn't just jump out of bed one day and steal the crown jewels. He needs to spend a long time learning how to open locks, sneak around, disarm traps, bluff guards, and fight dirty. Where do you think he learned all of this, a book?

    I don't have any problem with giving the thieves' cant to a background, I simply don't see why it can't be on the rogue, as well.
    I think they learned it the way most real life criminals learn it - by experience, rather than teaching. As an example, check out people like Bill Mason, and his autobiographical book Confessions of a Master Jewel Thief - and note that Bill doesn't speak in a magical, sooper sekret language that only jewel thieves can understand. Nor do I think that every Rogue needs to be a criminal; a military specialist who's had formal training within armed forces on sabotage would have no reason to speak in this secret, magical, criminal language - but he magically learns how to do so the second he receives his military training. I should be allowed to choose my character's background - and unless they intend that every Rogue be familiar with crime, they should change it.

    TLDR;
    Unless the designers are intentionally restricting the range of characters that can be expressed by the Rogue (to characters who are intimately familiar with criminals, in settings where thieves have a secret language), Thieves' Cant should only be part of a background that is available for any class (because every class could have a criminal background).
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 12:53 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I'm starting my own play-by-post for the 5th edition playtest, here on the forum. I'm going to be experimenting with making my own adventure, since I know Reclaiming Blingdenstone is already being done, unless there's some reason that I missed for not being allowed to do that.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Name me a setting that actually has a "secret language of thieves"? Because off the top of my head, established settings like FR, Eberron, Golarion, Dark Sun, etc. don't have a secret language of thieves.
    Technically, FR, Mystara, and the various other 1e had/have a secret language of thieves, since it was around for that edition and every thief spoke Thieves' Cant...but then, in 1e every lawful good character spoke Lawful Good, too. I don't see why the devs want to go back to that sort of thing, particularly now that backgrounds are explicitly separate from class and secret languages are a perfect example of what should be background instead of class.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I don't see why the devs want to go back to that sort of thing, particularly now that backgrounds are explicitly separate from class and secret languages are a perfect example of what should be background instead of class.
    This is a good summation of my opinion.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    - I don't believe that WotC is planning to create other classes; I believe they intend for the Rogue class to be used for every "Sneaky" character.
    Wizards of the Coast mentioned pretty soon in the D&D Next design that they planned to have every class to have ever been in a Player's Handbook in the new edition, so...

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Wizards of the Coast mentioned pretty soon in the D&D Next design that they planned to have every class to have ever been in a Player's Handbook in the new edition, so...
    Yup. Refer back to my post which directly quoted that. By "Sneaky" character, I was referring to the broad range of characters that the 3.5 Rogue could cover, which the D&D Next Rogue could also cover without Thieves' Cant artificially limiting what characters the class can support. From what I understand of AgentPaper's argument, they would prefer a system with far more classes, with each class corresponding to a specific type of character, which does not seem to be the intent in D&D Next. My claim is true in context of the discussion.

    I do not believe that base classes like "Swashbuckler", "Trapsmith", "Thief", "Pirate", "Detective", "Saboteur", and so on will be put into the game to cover these types of characters. I believe that WotC is going to use the "Rogue" base class to cover all of these characters. Thieves' Cant does not belong on all of these characters. Which is what I specified earlier in the thread.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 01:56 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Seriously, if the biggest problem we have with 5e is that it says that all Thieves get Theives' Cant, we'll be in pretty good shape.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Seriously, if the biggest problem we have with 5e is that it says that all Thieves get Theives' Cant, we'll be in pretty good shape.
    It's a comparatively minor problem, sure. It's also downright trivial to fix, as all that takes is removing Thieves Cant, sticking it on a background somewhere, and calling it a day. That immediately broadens what the rogue class can represent, and it provides options for everyone else to get Thieves' Cant - say you have a thug who works for someone in the criminal underworld, as muscle. This is someone who fits in the Fighter class, but really has no excuse not to know Thieves' Cant.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Seriously, if the biggest problem we have with 5e is that it says that all Thieves get Theives' Cant, we'll be in pretty good shape.
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Yup. Refer back to my post which directly quoted that. By "Sneaky" character, I was referring to the broad range of characters that the 3.5 Rogue could cover, which the D&D Next Rogue could also cover without Thieves' Cant artificially limiting what characters the class can support. From what I understand of AgentPaper's argument, they would prefer a system with far more classes, with each class corresponding to a specific type of character, which does not seem to be the intent in D&D Next. My claim is true in context of the discussion.

    I do not believe that base classes like "Swashbuckler", "Trapsmith", "Thief", "Pirate", "Detective", "Saboteur", and so on will be put into the game to cover these types of characters. I believe that WotC is going to use the "Rogue" base class to cover all of these characters. Thieves' Cant does not belong on all of these characters. Which is what I specified earlier in the thread.
    For many of those concepts, you have to ignore/refluff the 3.5 Rogue class.
    Why can't you refluff Thieves' Chant, then?

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    For many of those concepts, you have to ignore/refluff the 3.5 Rogue class.
    Not really; the 3.5 PHB didn't really give much at all in the way of fluff, and didn't tie you to a criminal background.

    My PDF software is being funky today, but once I can open it up I'll edit a quote from it in here.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Why can't you refluff Thieves' Chant, then?
    Because there isn't a logical way to explain why all Rogues know the same language which no-one else can learn. Even with Druidic you can hand-wave it as part of how they commune with nature, that anyone who knows it is so deep in their philosophy to be a Druid themselves.

    But what kind of universal connection is there between stealthy people who kill people with precision attacks? Obviously not crime, that makes no sense for a huge portion of the characters who have those abilities. The skills are commonplace, and simple enough to be re-discovered several times, so it likely isn't some secret rogue dojo somewhere. They aren't magic, so there's no room for that kind of a hand-wave.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •