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

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

For many of those concepts, you have to ignore/refluff the 3.5 Rogue class.
Why can't you refluff Thieves' Chant, then?

Refluffing is ok with me - I'd rather not have to do so, but it occurs sometimes, especially when the game devs and I have a different vision. I take issue with the fact that this is a mechanical ability of the Rogue class. Fluff != mechanical abilities. As we're still in a beta, and I see this as a pretty simple fix, I'm giving feedback that I believe will result in a more robust game. I'd love to have a system that I can pick up without having to doctor before play.

It's not a substantial problem on its own, but its indicative of a developmental mindset that I find strange. Either the developers didn't believe that players would want to run anything but the most stereotypical Rogue, they don't want players to run anything but the most stereotypical Rogue, or they made a mistake and it should be a Background instead of a class feature.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

For many of those concepts, you have to ignore/refluff the 3.5 Rogue class.
Why can't you refluff Thieves' Chant, then?

Thieves' Cant has a specific mechanical effect: The capacity to speak, write in, and understand speech and writing in the language of the criminal underworld. This is much harder to refluff than something like +1d6 damage when flanking, and while you can always have it be learned in counter espionage agents, or polyglots who also know a bunch of other languages, or people who are sneaky and happened to have a friend who knew it and so learned to speak it with a friend, or whatever, it still presents an obstacle to a whole bunch of characters and archetypes, as it gives them an ability they simply shouldn't have.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

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.

You probably mean the SRD. The 3.5 PHB has a lot of fluff.

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

Because there isn't a logical way to explain why all Rogues know the same language which no-one else can learn.

Please, tell me how is that any different from your Pirate, Swashbuckler or whatever having a knack for finding and disarming traps.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

You probably mean the SRD. The 3.5 PHB has a lot of fluff.

"Rogues have little in common with one another. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they do share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness. In general, rogues are skilled at getting what others don't want them to get: entrance into a locked treasure vault, safe passage past a deadly trap, secret battle plans, a guard's trust, or some random person's pocket money."

"Some rogues are officially inducted into an organized fellowship of rogues or "guild of thieves". Some are self-taught; others learned their skills from independent mentors....Rogues do not see each other as fellows unless they happen to be members of the same guild or students of the same mentors."

Yup, that's some pretty binding fluff right there that limits options.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Please, tell me how is that any different from your Pirate, Swashbuckler or whatever having a knack for finding and disarming traps.

It's largely a matter of degree - knowing a secret language is a completely different matter than being marginally better than most at dealing with traps. Added to that, you can simply not take the Disable Device skill for a pirate, swashbuckler, or whatever, and as such not actually be any better at finding and disarming traps - there's an easy way to opt out. Trap Sense, meanwhile, pretty much comes down to dodging better while surprised, which they also have with Uncanny Dodge, and which makes a lot of sense for basically any of the stealthy, agile archetypes Rogue works for.

That said, I'd still rather Trapfinding be handled as some sort of rogue bonus feat where there are other options than as a class feature.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Menteith

Yup, that's some pretty binding fluff right there that limits options.

Please, spare me your sarcasm. All I said was that the 3.5 PHB has plenty of fluff. And it does.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Please, spare me your sarcasm. All I said was that the 3.5 PHB has plenty of fluff. And it does.

As the sum total of Rogue fluff from the PHB fits on half a page, and not all the text on p49 is related to fluff, I feel comfortable disagreeing with you. Fluff for the Rogue exists in 3.5, but it's certainly not the significant amount you're making it out to be. There are spells in the PHB which take up more text than the entirety of Rogue flavor text. Water Bear was correct in saying that the PHB doesn't have much fluff, and that none of it ties you to a criminal background.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Menteith

As the sum total of Rogue fluff from the PHB fits on half a page, and not all the text on p49 is related to fluff, I feel comfortable disagreeing with you. Fluff for the Rogue exists in 3.5, but it's certainly not the significant amount you're making it out to be. There are spells in the PHB which take up more text than the entirety of Rogue flavor text. Water Bear was correct in saying that the PHB doesn't have much fluff, and that none of it ties you to a criminal background.

Feel free to disagree. Please, don't feel free to demean people with your sarcasm because they disagree with you.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Feel free to disagree. Please, don't feel free to demean people with your sarcasm because they disagree with you.

Fair enough. Sorry to have offended you, Thiago.

[Dublock]

Yea I don't like the fact that it does have...implications that ties the character to the criminal world.

But I fail to see why the DM and player just can't agree to waive it. I know its best to have it in the background but is it so critical that I just can't agree with my players to "forget" that its there and let them have a different style of rogue?

I guess I just don't see it as a big deal.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Dublock

Yea I don't like the fact that it does have...implications that ties the character to the criminal world.

But I fail to see why the DM and player just can't agree to waive it. I know its best to have it in the background but is it so critical that I just can't agree with my players to "forget" that its there and let them have a different style of rogue?

I guess I just don't see it as a big deal.

It's not a huge deal on its own, and if it's kept this way in the final version, I'd probably houserule it into a background. But since we're still in beta, doesn't it make more sense for them to simply fix it now, rather than officially having something like this in the game?

This whole thing sort of ballooned out of my statement a few pages back about how I don't like it when the mechanics of a class are welded to the fluff that WotC writes. As another example of this, and to get off the Thieves' Cant topic, I dislike how in 3.5, Bards can't be lawful (because clearly, a Savage Bard who acts as the center of a tribe and preserves their oral history couldn't possibly have a lawful nature). Do anyone think that Alignment is going to have a mechanical impact on the game, whether through spells like Detect Evil and Holy Word, or through feat/class/background selection?

[Camelot]

I don't see why the rogue can't teach the cant to everyone else in the group, over the course of a few levels maybe, and then they have their own secret sign language that they can use to communicate with each other in the presence of others. The rogue didn't have to learn it from other thieves, they could have just made it up.

[AgentPaper]

It also doesn't have to be a literal language, but more the skill of hidden meanings and such. Like, when you say you're in the "waste management" business, that means something completely different when you're talking to someone in the mob. Any king of roguish character might have a reason for wanting to talk this way, so he can discuss what he's doing in the open, rather than looking suspicious and whispering secrets all the time. Other rogues would know what a rogue was talking about, even if they were from different areas of the world and learned in different ways, just by knowing what to listen for, to look for the meaning behind the words instead of just the words themselves.

I don't know if this is what they meant in their description of the Thieves' Cant, though, and if it is they should probably make it more clear.

[RebelRogue]

I supposed it has a limited scope: while discussing methods of breaking and entering is easy using the cant, a theological debate is nigh impossible. That would make sense to me, at least.

[TheOOB]

For my 2cp, I think having Thieve's Cant as a class feature is silly, it should be a language, learnable like any other. A fighter could be a thief, part of the guild, and a rogue could be an honorable scout for the royal military. Maybe the rogue could instead get a bonus language, and mention they normally learn code languages.

[AgentPaper]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

For my 2cp, I think having Thieve's Cant as a class feature is silly, it should be a language, learnable like any other. A fighter could be a thief, part of the guild, and a rogue could be an honorable scout for the royal military. Maybe the rogue could instead get a bonus language, and mention they normally learn code languages.

I keep seeing a lot of archetypes thrown out that "don't make sense" with Thieves' Cant, but at least so far all of them either a) aren't really a big enough concept to be a "class" (IE: Trapsmith is a crafting skill) or b) would fit much better into a different class (IE: How is a scout anything but a Ranger, or maybe a Fighter?) or c) aren't exactly far fetched to have Thieves' Cant anyways. (IE: Bounty hunter. How do you find criminals the law can't find? By talking to other criminals)

[SSGoW]

I don't see how Thieve's Cant changes the game at all...

Back in 3.5 I never saw a game become broken or damaged because the Druid's secrete language -_-;;;

[Dublock]

Originally Posted by Menteith

It's not a huge deal on its own, and if it's kept this way in the final version, I'd probably houserule it into a background. But since we're still in beta, doesn't it make more sense for them to simply fix it now, rather than officially having something like this in the game?

What I meant by my post is simply that yes feedback should be given to change it, but why so much posts about it? Seems like a simple fix on their end if enough people request it they will change it.

[Menteith]

@ AgentPaper;
I can imagine characters that I'd like to play, that I'd like to use the Rogue class for, that wouldn't logically know Thieves' Cant. It is possible that I could forcibly change around a character's backstory to account for the class mechanic, but I'd much rather be allowed free reign on my character's background. I don't have a whole lot left to say about the ability; I don't think you and I are going to come to an agreement regarding it. You know why I feel the way I do, and I know why you stick to your position. We simply disagree.

Originally Posted by Dublock

What I meant by my post is simply that yes feedback should be given to change it, but why so much posts about it? Seems like a simple fix on their end if enough people request it they will change it.

Again, the whole thing started a few pages back when a single line from one of my posts (I dislike it when crunch is shackled to fluff, example of this is Thieves' Cant) was quoted and contested. I attempted to clarify my position, and it went back and forth about that for a few pages.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

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.



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.

If in 3.X they had just said "You must be this tall to ride" for the PrCs, or specifically "You need six levels before you can take a level in a PrC, unless a specific PrC says otherwise", all the early-entry shenanigans would have never happened.

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

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?

Where do you think we learn how to do those things? YouTube. So yes, he learned from a book, or a private tutor.

[Draz74]

Thieves' Cant should certainly be a Background feature.

I find it odd to classify rogue-like archetypes under the banner "sneaky." Some swashbuckler/pirate types are pretty over-the-top flamboyant; the veritable antithesis of sneaky.

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Feel free to disagree. Please, don't feel free to demean people with your sarcasm because they disagree with you.

For what it's worth, this may be cultural clash. The USA tends to use sarcasm more than most cultures, and therefore may use it without intending offense where other cultures may see it as "demeaning."

[The New Bruceski]

Leverage: Hacker, Hitter, Grifter, Thief, and Mastermind. They would all know the Cant, but they would not all be Rogues on paper. It's not exactly the standard D&D genre (Hardisan and Ford would be difficult to stat up well in a game without computers or puppetmasters, though Ford could make a good Warlord) but it makes the point.

[Lanaya]

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered elsewhere, but I just starting reading through the playtest rules today, and it seems that rogues can apply sneak attack damage whenever they get a hit, even if their target was fully aware of them and capable of defending themselves. Am I missing something, or is sneak attack just a flat damage boost?

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Lanaya

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered elsewhere, but I just starting reading through the playtest rules today, and it seems that rogues can apply sneak attack damage whenever they get a hit, even if their target was fully aware of them and capable of defending themselves. Am I missing something, or is sneak attack just a flat damage boost?

They have to have Advantage.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Dublock

Yea I don't like the fact that it does have...implications that ties the character to the criminal world.

I second that. I've had enough hassle in the past with players who automatically assume that your character will steal everything that isn't nailed down just because the word "rogue" is on his character sheet; we don't need the rules reinforcing that stereotype.

[Zombimode]

Originally Posted by Lanaya

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered elsewhere, but I just starting reading through the playtest rules today, and it seems that rogues can apply sneak attack damage whenever they get a hit, even if their target was fully aware of them and capable of defending themselves. Am I missing something, or is sneak attack just a flat damage boost?

Two points:
First, like mentioned, they need advantage on the attack roll.
Second, it is once per round.

I don't know how hard or easy it is to get advantage on the attack (since I lack a group of willing playtesters), but I would guess that the intention here is that the SA-bonus should not apply to every attack.

[Siegel]

I am interested to see on how GMs deal with the Bounty Hunter background. This shifts the campaign focus automaticly. I find this interesting and cool but a lot of railroad GMs will have no way to deal with that.

[Dublock]

I thought about that Siegel, but those DMs can just act like its a dry season, no bounty currently there (unless its a plot point).

[Camelot]

Just make one of the villains a bounty. They must have done something to get someone upset. Even if it's just a bunch of kobolds, you can have them be paying a certain amount per kobold head or something.

You would have to find a different motive for the person who put up the bounty than whoever's in charge of the law, since they would likely want the villain's head as well, or say that the bounty offers more money, or both.

[Surrealistik]

Just rocked the latest playtest.

Sorcerers seem pretty OP, at least so far as combat goes. Heavy armour + martial weapons + casting + good melee + range. They can do it all except utility. Nothing could hit my 19 AC (with the Shield spell) Sorcalops as he destroyed everything at range and in melee with Ray of Frost and Shocking Grasp, never getting hit once, especially with the Fighter spamming Defender on me (and vice versa); it was awesome to effectively play as Golbez though.

In the meanwhile, he held the line with the Protector fighter tank for the Rogue to get massive one hit wonders with ranged sneak attacks, while our Warlock artillery Eldritch Blasted in the background. Throw in caltrops, ball bearings, choke point utilization, and use of the Defender feat between me and the Fighter and every combat was laughably trivial. I don't think we took any damage at all for the entire module; no cleric necessary.

Also the Soldier background is an obvious go to. Training in Spot; nuff said. The 5e Perception equivalent is as OP as its 4e incarnation. This was used a truly dizzying number of times.

That said, I really hate the lack of damage scaling for the spells. I'd like to see ability mod scaling.

Sorcerer DC/attack scaling with levels is also inane; literally 0 progression in the playtest levels, 1-5.