Thread 96174372

What, to you, makes a PC feel competent and able to do what you want them to do?

I am unsure of how to better express this. When I create, for example, a level 1 PC in D&D 4e, Pathfinder 2e, 13th Age 2e, Draw Steel, or Daggerheart, the character often feels competent and able to do what I want them to do, both in and out of combat.

Conversely, when I create a level 3 character in D&D 5(.5)e, I often feel as though the character is still some incompetent neophyte getting their bearings, and that they cannot do what I want them to do. (Perhaps it has something to do with that small, anemic proficiency bonus of +2, and how a 2025 commoner will probably be better than a PC at their peak skill.) This gut feeling almost always carries over into actual play.

What seems to be the key mechanical ingredient to making a PC feel capable even at baseline character creation?

>>96174372 (OP)
>I am unsure of how to better express this
Try using your own words, rather than a chat bot. It helps expressing your actual ideas and thoughts.
>What seems to be the key mechanical ingredient to making a PC feel capable even at baseline character creation?
Having resolution mechanics that allow to succeed. You would know that, if you ever, even once, played any given TTRPG.

What a colossal waste of board space

>>96174372 (OP)
>What, to you, makes a PC feel competent and able to do what you want them to do?

In D&Dogshit? Being a caster. Full stop. Casters have spells that just DO things with no chance of failure. No hoping to roll good, no bargaining with the DM for advantage, no fussing over a miniscule +2 proficiency bonus for something my character has been doing all his life. No, I just cast a spell and succeed at the thing.

In non-D&D games, I'm actually a fan of "meta-currencies". Heretical opinion, I know, but sometimes it's nice to be able to throw a pile of narrative points at a thing my character is supposed to be good at and just say "I do the thing". It's much like casting a spell in that sense.

My PC is completely incompetent. She is a literal small town baker sent into Hell.

>>96174839
Paranoid schizophrenic post.

>>96174372 (OP)
As a DM, if a character is proficient at something, I usually just let them do it without a roll. Like >>96174935 says, if they were a caster they would just have a spell to do it anyway. Let's not pretend spell slots are limited enough to matter or that players WONT just whore Rests if you actually try to attrition them.

Honestly, let's not even pretend D&D is a remotely balanced game. I run it because everyone knows how to play it already, and most of the game's content is easy to find for free. That is all. As an actual game, modern D&D (5e/5.5e) is pretty poorly-designed and outdated.

>>96174971
4e if I recall tried to balance this out but truthfully 5e is not well balanced. There's an argument to be had that non-casters are consistent over time, but most DMs don't even try with attrition and those that do usually face pushback, so the fabled "wizard ran out of spellslots" moment never really comes. It's genuinely baffling too, because not only are spell slots guaranteed, but most spells don't even give an option for complete failure and only let the opponent miss half of the damage.
I'm not saying that fighters should auto-hit opponents but surely there are betters ways to balance things. Ironically warlocks are the most balanced casters because they only get two spell slots that come back on a short rest, so they still need to manually hit with their blasts and they have to think about how and when to cast a spell. Lo and behold, people would rather play sorcerer and metamagic their way into winning.
Of course, 5.5e decided to instead add maneuvers and nerf Divine Smite into a spell. I'm not saying to copy Pathfinder but they could have made it so spells can miss or make you explode.

also yeah anon it sucks, I want to run CoC or Lancer but you bring up TTRPGs and people either disparage it as lame or want to do DnD.

>>96175020
>Lancer
People are right to disparage it. Lancer is not a TTRPG. It's political soapboxing pretending to be a game.

>>96174952
Arianne is love, Arianne is life.

>>96175067
I like it. The mecha are cool and the setting is neat, and I didn't notice much in the vein of soapboxing.

>>96175088
anon post more art I want to see more of this girlfailure and also setting

"Feeling incompetent" is a function of the player, not the character. If you are succeeding you are competent, if you are making decisions where your character engages in activities where they are unlikely to succeed then that is a player issue, not a game mechanical issue.

ITT: fa/tg/uys crying because the popular game is popular

>>96174372 (OP)
It's because skill bonuses are lower in 5e than in many other ttrpgs. Have you tried playing a bard? Between expertice, jack of all trades, and a ton of utility spells, your character quickly gets really damn good at getting shit done. Rogue can feel pretty similar too.

>>96174952
Based

>>96175171
Lancer looks cool af. I have a friend who plays it, and I've been wanting to try it myself too.

>>96175224
i dunno anon, to use a very common example from dnd:
the wizards get spells that usually are auto hits and at worst do half damage.
fighters can roll poorly and miss all of their attacks.
sure, the former has to manage spell slots but when there aren't any negative effects to casting besides that, most fights end in 3 rounds anyways, and a lot of DMs let players long rest after two fights tops you can clearly see that one class is going to have more of a miserable experience than the others.
even at best, the upside to a fighter boiling down to "by fight number 3 if the wizard wastes their shit you can still roll and hit 65% of the time" is not appealing at all.

that's just one example, many TTRPGs have this weird disconnect where some or all of the options have the fuck you butterfingers outcome, regardless of what you do. call of cthulhu makes it a bit better with the DM having "success, but at a cost" i suppose.

>>96175204
I'm just a fan. You should ask >>96174952

>>96175256
is this from some popular online campaign or something?

>>96175244
I know right, I really like the mecha designs for being so out there. The Nelson in particular is really appealing.
I've been wanting to try it for some time but my group including myself is only 3 people, so I'm scouting for a group or another player. Just a shame most people do DnD.

>>96175254
So to be clear: your primary feeling of incompetence comes from when you are playing your preferred edition of dnd, and as a fighter, you miss your basic attack 35% of the time?

>>96175274
Hpnest advice, if you want to play Lancer, throw out all the lore and run your own setting. Lancer's default lore is super preachy and political, but even beyond that it's just incredibly poorly-written and undercuts it's own premise. This is supposed to be a game about mech battles, but Union (aka galactic civilization) is a post-scarcity utopia with infinite resource cheats and no reason to ever fight. They also have a super strong military though and also mechs hardly matter because real military power is actually all about star ships launching relativistic railguns at eachother and shit. This isn't even the tip of how retarded it gets either. Wait until you read about their take on sentient AI...

Lancer's gameplay and mechanics are OK. Much better than D&D 5e (not that this is an accomplishment). The Lore feels like some failed writer's scifi fanfiction though. Just throw it out, make your own lore.

>>96175311
This. Just copy something like Battletech's lore and use Lancer's mechanics. It makes so much more sense than Lancer's confused clusterfuck that doesn't even seem to know what it's own game is about.

>>96175204
>>96175088
>and also setting
The system/campaign we're playing or the character concept?
>>96175269
Nope. Just one autist who happens to be a an artist who decided to use his campaign for daily practice (me)

>>96175326
everything

>>96175281
well i'm not the OP and i meant that more as an example of feeling incompetent, relating to the OP's own example. it's less my primary feeling and more to counter your assertion that it is the player's own fault, DnD is an incredibly popular rpg where this sort of thing occurs. sure you could say to not play DnD but that's beside the point, which is that some popular systems can make your seemingly competent character feel bumbling even in contrast to other PCs.

>>96175244
>Between expertice
Wowee, an extra +2/+3 to a skill!

>>96174372 (OP)
>Conversely, when I create a level 3 character in D&D 5(.5)e, I often feel as though the character is still some incompetent neophyte getting their bearings

...compared to what?

A 1st level 5e character should have a +3 in their main stat and a +2 bonus from proficiency to skills they care about, for a total of +5 to checks with it. This means that:

- Excepting a natural 1 on attack rolls, you automatically succeed on DC 5 tasks. An ordinary person (+0 modifier) fails at such tasks 20% of the time.
- The most difficult thing an ordinary person can do (DC 20), you can accomplish 30% of the time
- While it is hard for you, you are still at least theoretically capable of accomplishing tasks that are just plain beyond the ability of ordinary people (DC 25)

Let's give a practical example. An Adult Red Dragon is CR 17; it's among the most powerful mortal creatures in the world, and meant to be a challenge for 17th level characters to defeat. It has a passive Perception of 23.

An ordinary person has absolutely no chance of ever sneaking by it. But a 1st level character with a +5 in Stealth has a 15% chance of doing so, or about one time in seven. A 1st level Rogue with Expertise in Stealth has a 25% chance, or one time in four.

I think you're confusing "competence" with "power".

>>96174935
Rogues are actually better than wizards at most things that a wizard might try to do to emulate a rogue in practice.

For example, a locked door. The Rogue just makes Thieves' Tools checks until he succeeds. This might take longer but it consumes no resources and makes no noise. Conversely, the Wizard must use the Knock spell, which creates a loud KNOCK sound that is expressly audible to everyone within 300 feet; additionally, the Wizard is using up a limited resource (spell slot), while the Rogue has limitless uses of his Thieves' tools.

Consider also stealth. A 3rd level Rogue can be expected to have a +7 bonus to Stealth (+3 Dex, +2 proficiency, +2 Expertise). A 3rd level wizard is unlikely to have a modifier of higher than +3 to Dexterity, and being Invisible per RAW does not actually grant any special bonus to Stealth checks (i.e., no advantage). Even if the DM grants advantage anyway, the Rogue with a regular roll+7 is actually slightly better at Stealth checks than a Wizard with Advantage+3, especially towards higher DCs.

Using my Adult Red Dragon example from above, a Rogue with +7 sneaks past the dragon 25% of the time; a Wizard with +3 but advantage sneaks past 9.75% of the time, or less than half as often. AND, again, he needed to use a limited resource to do it.

>>96175673
Just to add something: an invisible Rogue with +7 would sneak past the dragon 43.75% of the time. So the best use of the wizard's spell slot is to make the Rogue better at stealth, rather than trying to be stealthy himself. Remember: D&D is a team game.

my take is that DMs probably make players do too many rolls, shit like "make a survival roll every 5 minutes to track this bandit through the woods", and having every party member do athletics rolls to climb a 8 foot wall. with how swingy the d20 is there will be guaranteed failure eventually at lower and even to mid range levels. along with too many rolls, when a PC fails a task it often means they are just locked out of progressing so they just stand there looking like an idiot. Im not saying players need to always be able to fail forward, but i think the rolls need to be fewer and for when there's real obstacles
>>96175274
>>96175244
Ive ran and played it for a couple years now. It's very fun, but it is not well balanced and you will want your GM and players to be on top of all their BS they can use and abuse so that fights don't take 5 hours to go through, 4 players max is honestly what you want when everyone's figuring out the game

And Nelson is that fucking guy, my player maxed his AGI and can just pop his core and fly around the entire damn map without even trying and still do stupid damage

>>96174372 (OP)
When I no longer need to roll. Don't try, just do.

>>96174372 (OP)
Why does Cerydra suck so much ass?

>>96175602
That's pathetic.

>>96175469
I think if you go over some examples in your own life, where you've felt incompetent because your character failed a roll; then try to view them as an attitude problem; you'll find the exercise rewarding.

>>96175458
>setting/story
D&D 3.5e
Campaign is Descent into Avernus that our gigachad DM converted from 5e to 3.5e
>plot on paper
You go onto an epic quest to save a city that was sucked up into Avernus for a grand sacrifice orchestrated by Zariel. You start some time before that event then you find the culprits in the material world before being going into an expedition to Avernus (Hell) itself to try and save as many citizen as possible.
>meanwhile in practice
You get bamboozled into higher and higher stakes quests. What starts as "find a couple of weird fellas in the woods" culminates in getting scammed with a one-way ticket to Hell.
>Arrianna Luna Gladebottom
Arrianne is a relatively young, cute redneck elf from bumfuck nowhere place near Snakewood (a Forest/swamp renown for absolutely fucking nothing). She is a baker and and runs a small market stall in nearest city of Elturel (guess what happens to it) where she sells raspberries, snake pelts and pastries. She lives like this for 67 years before deciding to have some fun, and one day decide to guide a bunch of unsavory individuals innawood to find some cultists. Arrianne is very friendly, tolerant, open, polite, patient and has an overall positive outlook on people and society (something that will bite her in the ass very hard the moment the story starts)
>Arrianne mechanically/party role
Ranger/Scout combo. Ranged martial with a lot of movement (60ft). Her role in combat is flanking. Using her huge movement speed to circle the battlefield and attack enemies from side/read. Her role outside of combat is a skillmonkey with primary focus on social skills. I took Zen Archery as a feat to completely ignore the usual dex build for ranged play and put all points in WIS and INT so I got tons of skill points per level.

Just ask and I'll tell more.

>>96175904
You could just...play a higher level character? Start the game at 5th or 10th or 15th level, if that's what you really want?

>>96175705
That's not "competence", that's "mastery".

What is with this trend of people just checking out of a campaign and deciding a system sucks if they fail at a task or a battle requires some skill to win? Is it vidya? Smartphone brainrot? Zoomer neuroticism? The whole point of DnD is that you go from the ambitious town hero with a rusty sword to a demigod.

>>96176034
>just lift yourself by your bootstraps, bro!

>>96174372 (OP)
It mostly breaks down to being able to do shit and do it reliably.

Let's take the humble fighter (or local equivalent.)
The fighter fights things. It's in the name. They (typically) arm themselves with a weapon and fight people with that weapon. And they're supposed to be good at it. Being good at it is what makes them a Fighter and not just some jackoff with a sword.

I am not here to do a 4e vs 5e debate, but let's take a quick look at a starting Fighter in both editions. I will be using the 4e Figther (Slayer) as my point as comparison.

A level 1 5e fighter has a slight specialization with their fighting style, and can second wind. This is what defines a level 1 fighter in 5e.

To compare this to the slayer - At level 1, the Slayers can
1. Gain a bonus to his damage based on his dexterity. This represents that they fighter's skill isn't just based on raw strength, but also being able to handle a weapon.
2. Power Strike. Once in a fight, the slayers knows how to press the attack and hit someone harder. This ability also shows you that it scales both in usage and damage, meaning you can see what the fighter growing stronger will look like.
3. They can enter different stances. They know the footwork and positioning in order to do more than just a hit a guy.
4. They get a bonus with *all* weapon attacks. Because even if they're not specialized in it, they know how to fight with basically anything.
This is fighter specific stuff, but I will also include two general features of the 4e adventurer.
1. Every 4e adventurer knows how to second wind.
2. Every 4e adventurer can use action points to push themselves harder. While this is not identical to the 2nd level fighter ability to action surge, it's pretty fucking closer. And again, this is a general ability of all adventurers.

More to follow.

>>96176034
>literally a 60 year old boomer fa/tg/uy giving advice

>>96176198
>Is it vidya? Smartphone brainrot? Zoomer neuroticism?
All and none, it's "youth" I'm pretty sure. I think in general because of how people grow up now they're less pleased with long-term projects like an RPG campaign, and in a world where you can satisfy any impulse with media it's easy to see why someone age range 16-24 would trend towards wish-fulfilment and power fantasy. Missing? No the hero always punches super hard and says a funny quip afterwards. There's also the simple fact that there are more kids on the internet than ever before, both in % and total quantity. Every moment that passes the old way becomes less and less popular.

>>96174372 (OP)
>>96176252
So then let's talk about 5e's greatest sin: bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy was a design decision in 5th edition.

While the player scales up in 5th edition, the amount that they scale up in terms of most things that aren't spells is pretty limited. And this has the negative impact that it feels like characters don't get meaningfully stronger.

Let's take the example of doors. Breaking a wooden door takes a DC 15 check. In 5th edition, due to bounded accuracy, this can still be an issue with higher level characters.

When we compare it to most other editions, there will come a point in your adventure where you've gotten powerful. A wooden door is no longer a challenge. And this is important. Part of getting more experienced is that the things that used to challenge you are now trivial.

And this contributes to why 5e characters don't feel competent. Because they're never actually getting better at most task, at least not in a meaningful way.

>>96176198
None of these things. It's the fact that they're being promised a power fantasy by the game, both explicitly and implicitly; and then the game fails to deliver.

>>96176307
>there will come a point in your adventure where you've gotten powerful. A wooden door is no longer a challenge.

Not really? Breaking a wooden door is always going to be a Strength check regardless of edition.

In 1e and 2e, this would mean rolling a d20 and trying roll under your Strength score. If you have a Strength of 13, then you succeed on a roll of 1-13 and fail on a roll of 14-20. In 1e and 2e there was no non-magic way to increase Strength scores, so you could be a 1st level Fighting Man or a 20th level one, and you still have the same 65% chance on pure personal skill alone.

In 3e, you're instead rolling a d20 and adding your Strength modifier. If you have a 15 Strength then you roll a d20+2. As you level you do get ability score increases, but only 1 per 4 levels, so that 15 eventually becomes a 20 by 20th level, giving you a d20+5. So you got better, but not much better, and it took literally your entire adventuring career to do it.

4e gives you a slight increase to this: you can increase Strength specifically by +1 at six points as you level up, plus an additional +1 at 11th and 21st from all scores increasing. So that +2 from a 15 Strength eventually becomes a +6. But again, it took literally your entire adventuring career to increase it that much.

In 5e, your Strength might start at 15, but because the ASIs per four levels can be doubled-up, you reach max Strength faster. A Fighter who starts with 15 Strength can have a 20 by 8th level. Meaning that by 8th level, he's as good as the 3e Fighter would ever be by 20th, and almost as good as the 4e Fighter would ever be by 28th.

But they all suck compared to the 1e and 2e Fighter despite the fact that they literally never get better at it, simply because of the different system being used.

'tis a bad example, is my point

>>96175702
>my take is that DMs probably make players do too many rolls
I have one GM who really struggles with this. Or I struggle with his habit, mode accurately. My character failed to take the back off a jukebox once with a middling crafting roll, and more recently he ruled I couldn't safely bottle already clean water for longterm travel because I wasn't trained in Survival, and therefore couldn't reliably clean our scavenged glass bottles despite having access to a fully functional goddamn kitchen.

I love the campaign he's run but his propensity to call rolls on pointless BS is the biggest bugbear. Half the reason I reclassed was because he called so many Perception checks and the low mod from my class made me feel like I was playing Mister Magoo.

>>96176711
Your counter-examples are all kind of bad for a number of reasons.

Saying there is no non-magic way to increase strength scores in 1e and 2e misses an important factor. Gaining magical items was an expected part of the gameplay loop of 1st and 2nd edition. Your strength was going to go up. Likewise, it was not common to have a fighting man at 13 strength in those games.

3rd edition you're again lowballing PC strength. The only reason you'd have a 15 strength as a PC in your primary stat (since again we're talking about a fighter) is if you were using an the standard array intended for NPCs. Generally you could expect PCs to be stronger than that. And once again you're neglecting that items are part of progression. There was a point where you expected items like a Belt of Giant Strength. That 20th level fighter, even with a starting strength of 15 is rocking a 26 strength, which amounts to a +8. It's not impossible to fail this check, but it's pretty low. This also assumes no other permanent stat upgrades.

4e you're just kinda wrong. You seem to treat a 20 as the max strength. In 4e, you're expected to start with an 18 in your primary stat (16+2 racial). Unless you are intentionally playing suboptimally, you're starting with a 18 strength with a +4 bonus. Was not uncommon for people to start with an 20 and a +5, especially if your class was something less MAD like a fighter. A level 20 fighter has a 23-25 strength, not at 20. Level 30 fighters would have a 26-28 strength. In 4e you also ignore that you're going to be adding your half level to your ability checks. An 18 starting strength fighter auto-succeeds by level 16. 20 starting auto-succeeds at 14. This does not assume magic items (again, progression)

>>96176711
>>96177362
I will also add this one on, specifically dealing with the 3.5 Fighter but could also apply to fighters in other editions. I'm just less familiar with their break rules.

Level 5 fighter w/ 16 strength, power attack and a non-magical greatsword who takes a full round attack to attack a door will *always* destroy a standard wooden door, will destroy a good wooded door with a statistically average damage roll, and breaks a solid wooden door on a max damage roll.

>>96177362
> 3rd edition you're again lowballing PC strength. The only reason you'd have a 15 strength as a PC in your primary stat (since again we're talking about a fighter) is if you were using a the standard array intended for NPCs.

The standard array of 15,14,13,12,10, and 8 is intended for PCs, as it is (assuming you round down all fractions) the most statistically likely set of numbers rolled off of 4d6 drop lowest. Being able to get these numbers with no points left over was also the basis of the 25-point but that was the standard method of point buy in 3e.

The NPC default array in 3e is 13,12,11,10,9, and 8, which is approximately the most likely result of 3d6 x 6. This is stated in the DMG, but you don’t have to believe me, you can test this by looking up the 3.5 stats for any monster with an LA of +0 statted out as a warrior, such as the default goblin or kobold. Once you remove racial adjustments, that’s the array you’re left with.

Monsters without class levels (such as dragons) were instead built around having a 10 or 11 in every stat. This is important because it’s what let’s you figure out what the ability score adjustments of various monsters are in case you ever want to customize them or make them PCs.

> Generally you could expect PCs to be stronger than that.
Nope. The system’s math is built around the assumption of the default array mentioned above. Stronger PCs are possible, but then so are weaker ones.

Your DM could let you build a PC with more points than 25, but this was not a core assumption. You could use a 25-point-buy to get a higher starting stat than 15, but this also wasn’t a core assumption and moreover would leave you lacking in all other areas. Getting an 18, for example, cost 16 points, leaving just 9 points for the five remaining stats.

I suspect you never actually played 3e if you don’t know all this.

>>96177758
I'll admit I remembered the arrays wrong. However, in my defense - I have not played 3.5 in over a dozen years. However.

>Your DM could let you build a PC with more points than 25, but this was not a core assumption.
>I suspect you never actually played 3e if you don’t know all this.
I played 3.5 pretty consistently for about 7 years across multiple groups. Now, we can argue that this is the result of some kind of anomaly (such as, for example, all of these groups being part of a larger social web), but NO ONE used a 25 point buy. Everyone used 32 point buy.

>>96177362
> Gaining magical items was an expected part of the gameplay loop of 1st and 2nd edition.
It’s also part of 5e, you’re just (as in 1e and 2e) never assumed to have a specific magic item on you. Puzzles requiring a 29 Strength are not in an adventure unless a way of getting 29 Strength (a potion of storm giant strength, say) is also included in the adventure; challenges are not built around the assumption that the party includes a cleric with a magical blunt weapon of at least +2.

I believe by RAW a DM rolls on the various magic item takes something like 75 total times across 20 levels. I forget exactly; it’s brought up in Xanathar’s Guide.

> In 4e, you're expected to start with an 18 in your primary stat (16+2 racial)
You’ll note I didn’t factor race at any point across the whole thing, so you might more honestly say 16…except that I believe 4e still has 4d6 drop lowest as the default method of generating stats, with then an array of defaults as a secondary option and point buy as a tertiary one. Since, again, the 15,14,13,12,10, and 8 are the most likely results of 4d6 drop lowest, this means that a by-the-book 4e character defaults to 15 as their highest “naked” stat.

I’m fine with assuming 16 instead, but then I’d also have assumed 16 in 5e and 3e, since their methods of stat generation are identical (the point but math differs but is still fundamentally oriented around being able to build a Default Array character with 0 points left over).

>>96177846
I mean, that’s fine, but the DMG says that the 25 point buy is default, and the developers stated that all the math is oriented around a Default Array assumption, precisely because they assumed everyone would be rolling 4d6 drop lowest and thus broadly end up with the Default Array.

>>96174839
Touhoufag has been talking like that since before you were a twinkle in your uncle's eye you little gobshit.

>>96175527
Time was, you shelled out a Feat Slot for +2 to two skills.

>>96177921
>You’ll note I didn’t factor race at any point across the whole thing
Except it's important to understand the rules in the context of the game they're being played in. All races got at least a +2 in a stat. Humans got a floating +2, most of the intended PC races were given a +2 to a stat, and then a choice between a +2 to one stat or +2 to another stat. (for example: Dwarves got a +2 Con, and then a choice between +2 Str or +2 Wis.) This was not always the case, but is the case after erratas.
Unless you were going for some incredibly niche builds, you were putting the +2 in your primary stat.

>except that I believe 4e still has 4d6 drop lowest as the default method of generating stats
And you would be wrong. I actually grabbed my PHB to double check this.
4th edition has 3 methods listed. Method one is the 4e standard array: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. This is the array given in the PHB.
Method two is "customizing scores", where in you start with an array of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 and 22 points with which to spend on raising stats.
Method 3 was rolling stats, 4d6 drop lowest. While not RAW, worth mentioning the book also advised on these two things:
1. that your DM might ask you to reroll if your stats were below a total of +4 or above a +8 before factoring in racial modifiers. Not a hard rule, but you can feel WotC's suggestion.
2. That rolled stats were barred in RPGA use.

Now, if we are going by order in the book, the intended way to play is using the array. Gives you a 16 to your primary stat before racial modifiers. With racial modifiers, an 18.
However, I'll mention that in the builder that WotC themselves gave you, they assumed you were using method 2. Arrays were hidden behind a button, and you were given multiple options.
I'll also point out, since we're discussing the builder. If you hit that autopick button, it will always put an 18 in your primary stat.

>>96178103
>Unless you were going for some incredibly niche builds, you were putting the +2 in your primary stat.
Yes, but again: this is true in 3e and 5e as well. So if I’m assuming a half-Orc with 17 Strength in 4e then I’m assuming a half-orc with the same in 3e and 5e.

> Method one is the 4e standard array: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

I always knew 4rries were a bunch of powergaming faggots…no but seriously this actually annoys me because if you DON’T round fractions then the Default Array would actually be 16,14,13,12,11,9. Very similar to the 4e default except the 9 is bumped to a 10. Y’all just hate the idea of having a penalty THAT much, don’t you? That you couldn’t roll dice as God intended, even when given 4d6 drop lowest to game the system in your favor. No, you just HAD to kegjigger things to get rid of that horrifying -1.

You know, when I rolled up my 5e character, which was also the first time I got to play D&D player-side (I’d been Forever DM’d for 16 years), my worst stat that I rolled was a 10. I actually asked the DM if I could just pretend I’d rolled a 9 instead because I hated the idea of not having a penalty to Wisdom (where I was putting my 10). I actually wanted to go lower, I asked for a 7, but the DM wouldn’t let me go that low.

Frickin’ 4rries. You’re none of you any fun.

>>96176252
>I will be using the 4e Figther (Slayer) as my point as comparison.

>Essentials
Why?

>>96174372 (OP)
>What, to you, makes a PC feel competent and able to do what you want them to do?
At least two of these:
>Having an important niche (combat, sneaking, diplomacy, etc.) where I can succeed effortlessly most of the time (especially when performing trivial tasks), succeed at a cost in critical moments, and still succeed significantly more often than the next best person in the party. If the system has degrees of success/failure, or the option to take skill penalties to add additional benefits to an action, then even better.
>Having a unique ability (e.g., dispelling magic, raising the dead, detecting supernatural evil or danger) that is important for adventuring and that only I can do
>Being able to wipe my own ass without GM permission and do the things that a common person should be able to do.
This last point is very important. Aside from being able to tank ludicrous amounts of punishment, D&D fighters are almost always worse at fighting than most real-life warriors and soldiers. In all the games you've mentioned, I've never once felt actually competent. I've always felt like a retarded idiot savant who can only do one thing well, even at high level.
Narrative game systems aren't any better, because I still feel like a bumbling fucking retard because the GM always fudges the difficulty for the sake of drama, regardless of actual skill.
I've never had this problem with non-narrative non-gamist systems. I could always make a character that felt competent in the areas where they should be competent.

>>96178153
>So if I’m assuming a half-Orc with 17 Strength in 4e then I’m assuming a half-orc with the same in 3e and 5e.
Well this leads to two questions. If we're assuming you're using the array and a Strength primary class, where did your 16 go? You put it somewhere.
But also, let's just remember. A lot of times people will default to human.
Across the various systems, this gives a starting stat of
3e: 15 Str Human Fighter (array + no racial)
4e: 18 str Human Fighter (array + racial applied to Str)
5e: 16 Str Human Fighter (array + Human +1 to all stats)

>No, you just HAD to kegjigger things to get rid of that horrifying -1.
Man, I am not the one who decided on the round. I'm also going to be blunt: arrays are for new players. You know what new players are always hesitant about? Having their character be bad at something. They're okay with their character not being good at something but being bad at something makes them squeamish. So with that in mind, the array was rounded up rather than down.

Personally I liked 18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8 as a stat line for more SAD characters and 16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 8 for MAD when playing 4e.

>I’d been Forever DM’d for 16 years
Skill issue.

>>96178237
I picked the fighter that was closest mechanically to the 5e fighter for the comparison.

>>96178255
>D&D fighters are almost always worse at fighting than most real-life warriors and soldiers.
What?

>>96178326
nta but kinda makes sense. You don't need to learn how to cleave or attack more than once every 6 seconds. However, a D&D fighter does progress in a smaller timeframe than a real life warrior

>>96175326
>Just one autist who happens to be an artist who decided to use his campaign for daily practice (me)
Your stuff is amazingly cute. I've always wondered what it would be like to run a game well enough that someone felt compelled to draw actual art of it. Your GM must be very proud.
Unfortunately, I seem to have an antipathetic effect on artists. Every single one who has joined my gaming groups has always crashed out at some point in the first few sessions, then abruptly left.
>>96176146
I've always wanted to run a Planescape or interplanar campaign that takes the party through the Nine Hells at some point. Although I love many of D&D's monsters and settings, I'll probably run it in a different system. Currently running a GURPS Infinite Worlds campaign.
>Just ask and I'll tell more.
What's her relationship with the other members of the party and how'd she get dragged into Hell?

>>96174935
I don't think it's that heretical. Games have them because they serve purposes. I personally like Conan 2d20's momentum, a shared pool of extra die fed by players exceeding the needed successes (even if that was from from momentum, so you can just keep it going, no reasson not to take it). It makes things play different from other games. And some mechanics requiere an ammount of successes you can only reach with those extra die so it's not all about masturbating players, it's also about mechanically locking the big stuff towards the end a big sequence.

you should probably play point buy systems if you want competent characters.
like GURPS

It depends on the GM. I try to avoid rolling and give descriptions according to their skill for failure (so a proficient lockpicker might fail, but in the process they manage to see what's inside the box or where it was made or something). Some systems are designed for rolls to miss, 5e is one of those, the problem comes from NPCs and the world acting as if missing 55+% of the time isn't the norm for everyone excet the PCs.

>>96175020
The most fun I had with 5e was playing a caster with a 3 chances of random encounter per day and 3 per night. Managing the spells to always keep stuff in for future events was stresful in a fun way. There was days where I was playing like a level or 2 lower because I didn't use the slots at all, there were days I had burned my last slot and some shit jumped out of nowhere and I wanted to throw my glass to the wall. Fun stuff.

The game is more fun if you play it the way it's intended to be more fun.

>>96175067
why isn't it a game?

>>96178310
Starting with an 18 before racial modifiers just plain shouldn’t be encouraged. Having an 18 is supposed to be special, not the default for an 1st level character. Even with 4d6 drop lowest it happens less than 2% of the time. Even across six rolls it happens less than 10% of the time.

Which feeds back into the larger point, viz., 5e characters aren’t incompetent, 4e players are just on a power trip because 4e encouraged it on a systemic level.

>>96175673
>The Rogue just makes Thieves' Tools checks until he succeeds.
Anon... You never allow someone to just keep repeating a check. You either succeed or you fail, if you fail you can't just "roll again" unless you're doing something in combat. If that isn't the case you shouldn't be rolling in the first place. Wizards can also take Thieves Tool proficiency using their background by RAW (assuming we're still talking about 5e), though they won't have as good as a Dex score. I rarely see rogues put their expertise in thieves tools because it's often better spent elsewhere so the difference isn't that wide.
>Invisible per RAW does not actually grant any special bonus to Stealth checks (i.e., no advantage
The thing is RAW the DM can/will grant advantage if something is being aided by beneficial circumstances, and it's really hard to argue that "being invisible" doesn't aid "not being seen" 99% of the time.
>DM grants advantage anyway, the Rogue with a regular roll+7 is actually slightly better at Stealth checks than a Wizard with Advantage+3, especially towards higher DCs.
This isn't entirely true. For every DC from 10 to 18, which is where you'll see most DCs for most adventures, invisibility +3 with advantage is negligibly ahead by a few %. For 19-20 +7 is negligibly ahead by a % and only really starts pulling ahead for 21+, which is beyond Hard/approaching Very Hard by the game's standards.

By the time you start seeing DCs in that range with any regularity the rogue will be all but guaranteed to succeed with huge bonuses, and the wizard will be able to succeed in ways the rogue can't but will have to spend resources to do so. Like the dragon has blindsight out for 60 feet. No matter how stealthy the rogue is, they effectively get "seen" if they get close, but the wizard could polymorph into something inconspicuous like a bug, or teleport in and out.

tl;dr I don't agree with that anon, and overall agree with you, but I wanted to be pedantic

>>96176198
Trend? WoD always allowed you to roll 8 times in a row until it works because you're the best and chance of failure is an illusion. You probably were like this at some point and you cringe at it.

At the same time, D&D offers a certain structure while being the overwhelmingly dominant game. People want more than one type of adventure, I don't see what's hard to get.
This is an issue D&D already try to approach 5 tiers of play in BECMI. It's not even a new issue. And it shouldn't be one if people played D&D when they wanted the D&D experience and played other stuff for other stuff.

>>96176307
>When we compare it to most other editions, there will come a point in your adventure where you've gotten powerful. A wooden door is no longer a challenge. And this is important.
if you want to play super heros, I guess.
King Arthur wasn't breaking doors with a kick and eating rocks for breakfast. 5e made a choice of keeping power levels withing a certain range, it's not a fuck up, it's a choice based on the play experience of previous editons going to shit once they reach that level. So now you get to play epic7 all the way to level 20.
You can always play Exalted, if a game doesn't offer what you want it's not that they're retarded it's just a different game.

>>96178471
>I've always wondered what it would be like to run a game well enough that someone felt compelled to draw actual art of it.
It's not the DM. It's just the overall table. I just really like drawing things that I find fun and I developed good habit to draw whenever I feel like I can capture a moment and our table is full of them. We have two more artists at the table, but...they're a bit younger and they don't have those habits.
>Currently running a GURPS Infinite Worlds campaign.
I wish there was someone in my entire city who could teach me something that is NOT D&D. I really wanna try cyberpunk, pf 1 and CoC but sadly, everyone is poisoned by 5e

Arrianne relationship in another post

>>96176198
>skill
>TTRPG combat
let's not oversell it.
Anyway, different games and genres promise different things. Modern DnD isn't ADnD, the promised power fantasy occurs much faster and is baked further into the game. You spend very little, if any, as just some shmuck with the clothes on his back and the sword in his hand. It's not even new as concept, games like Exalted and HERO that allow you to start with high levels of power and play with cool abilities from the jump weren't printed yesterday.

>>96178471
>What's her relationship with the other members of the party
Abysmal. Now that John died, she is left as the only adult in the party. So much so that she now sleeps outside of camp because she tried to kill the wizard and the party said no.
>with Amy
Arrianne sees Amy is a literal presence of Corellon because she really believes that stuff Amy does cannot be done without some divine intervetion, because she sees Amy as a very stubborn, young and lately too blind to see reason. She thinks Amy is a force of good but she fears she can be manipulated like Frost.
>with Frost
She considers Frost a mindless thug. But now she feels even more unsafe around him because he is very gullible and can be easily manipulated. At the start of campaign, Arrianne herself gaslit Frost into behaving himself but now he is being completely manipulated by Ferris and she feels Ferris might convince Frost to do something very stupid.
>with Ferris
Hates and fears him. She believes he has become too corrupted by whatever makes him backfire spells and she is convinced that he suffers from at least partial demonic possession of some kind. Couple of sessions ago she literally tried to kill him when he grew a couple of faces on his head during his newest miscast.

>how'd she get dragged into Hell?
It was supposed to be a brief scouting expedition and our holyphant teleporter decided to get complete amnesia and forget everything (including how to teleport back). So we were stuck underequiped, with a lot of hoarded stuff back in material plane with no way of getting it. Almost a Dungeon Meshi scenario.

>>96178822
>if you want to play super heros, I guess.
That's kinda what 5e is. It's just that 5e is very schizophrenic in terms of how strong the PCs are menat to be. They're certainly meant to be more powerful and fantastical than King Arthur. One second your party can be killing dragons with ease and cutting down hordes of foes by the dozens, and the next your fighter fails to deliver a hit on a local guard, and can't grapple them with all their might. Seconds later your wizard sends the guard to a different plane of existence and summons a giant demon to deal with the rest of them.

>>96178784
> You never allow someone to just keep repeating a check
Source? Because I’m pretty sure that’s not 5e RAW. Maybe it’s your preference, but my take is that unless there’s a good reason for it and as long as you have the time, there’s no reason you can’t try a check over and over again. Back in 3e that’s what taking 20 literally represented: you were rolling over and over until you got a 20. Hence why taking 20 also took 20 times as long.

> For every DC from 10 to 18, which is where you'll see most DCs for most adventures, invisibility +3 with advantage is negligibly ahead by a few %. For 19-20 +7 is negligibly ahead by a % and only really starts pulling ahead for 21+, which is beyond Hard/approaching Very Hard by the game's standards.
Yes, perhaps, but you aren’t factoring in that I’m just taking a 3rd level Rogue and a 3rd level Wizard. At 10th level, the Wizard’s Stealth modifier is almost certainly identical - still +3 - and he doesn’t have much in the way of improved magical Stealth options. Improved Invisibility is improved because it’s harder to break, not because it actually improves your stealthiness. Meanwhile the 10th level Rogue is now rocking +13 to Stealth checks. Further in just one additional level he’ll get Reliable Talent - now it is not possible for him to roll less than 23 on a Stealth check. On his worst day, even with Disadvantage from carrying too much of the dragon’s loot, he casually slips past that Adult Red unnoticed, while the Wizard is still being caught out around 90.25% of the time. All without consuming any resource.

> No matter how stealthy the rogue is, they effectively get "seen" if they get close
Nope, that’s not how Blindsight works. Blindsight only means that the monster doesn’t need eyes (or light) to effectively “see”, but this doesn’t mean that it’s easier or harder to sneak past them under most circumstances.

>>96178822
First off, the fact that you're using King Arthur as the basis of your idea of low fantasy is fucking wild to me. Have you read any Arthurian myths? Like sure, you're not quite at the level of Irish Goku that you get in something like the Ulster cycle, but make no mistake there's superhero shit going on. Hell, there probably is a myth somewhere in there where fucking Sir Kay eats a rock like an apple to break his fast.

As for the rest of your post, just some general thoughts.
1. e6, not e7. e7 is a 5th edition bastardization of e6 because the babies can't stand to not have their 4th level spells.
2. I'm just describing the idea of character progression, something that has always been a part of D&D. 5th edition sucks at it when compared to all other editions.
3. Your dig at exalted is weird as hell dude. The solution to my "problem" is just not playing the version of D&D that sucks ass - which is what I do by not playing 5th edition. But yeah, sometimes I am in the mood for other games. At which point I just play those games.

>>96179404
>e7 is a 5th edition bastardization of e6 because the babies can't stand to not have their 4th level spells.

I mean I don’t play e7, but speaking personally I’d rather if 3e had e7 too, not for spells (i mainline Rogues in D&D), but rather because I played a lot Star Wars d20 when it came out back in the day, and 7th level was the level at which the Jedi Guardian and Jedi Counselor classes officially become Jedi Knights. So I just mentally think of 7th level as the “graduation” level as a result, the point at which you are officially a Seasoned Adventurer.

>>96174372 (OP)
It's not a mechanical issue.
It is a tone and competency issue.

>>96178597
Yeah, I just think that the game wasn't designed to be played the way most DMs do, with only one or two encounters a rest. It makes a lot more sense when you get randomly attacked a lot and have to keep things tracked.
>>96175311
From a quick skim I do find it weird how the technology levels seem to vary from "the galaxy is fucked" to post-scarcity utopia and all that's in between. The demonic-style AI is cool but overall the setting does feel a bit slapped together. I'm more interested in an Armored Core style setting anyways.
>>96178822
Ignoring how King Arthur and his peers absolutely were doing that, it's a matter of feel as well. If your average fighter is going to be missing attacks and fucking up, then even if in the long run they hit 65% of the time it'll still feel like shit in comparison to a wizard's spells doing guaranteed damage. Of course, DnD was designed to string encounters together in a dungeon and so the latter has limited supplies, but a lot of DMs don't even engage with this aspect of gameplay.

I don't think the issue is "gen z needs to learn not to have a power fantasy" so much as that the way DMs typically run their sessions does not take resource management into account. When a huge part of class balance is based around that resource management, then it's clear why characters can feel subpar compared to others. This isn't even talking about Bounded Accuracy, which can hurt both PCs and NPCs in the long run in terms of feeling like progression

>>96179357
>Source?
Anon, it's TTRPG 101. You don't ask for repeated rolls because it's tedious and indicates that the roll is meaningless, because if you can roll 100 times without issue you're going to succeed eventually, unless the task is literally impossible for your character in which case you shouldn't be rolling.
>, there’s no reason you can’t try a check over and over again
If you are in a position to do something ad infintium you should not be rolling for it. Just say the person does it and move on. You roll to pick a lock when the lock is complex enough for a character not to "get it", or there's a risk of being heard, or there's a trap that could be set off, or there's a time limit and you're trying to pick the lock quickly. Those all have consequences for failing, if failing does nothing do not roll if you respect your time or the table's time.
>Back in 3e that’s what taking 20 literally represented: you were rolling over and over until you got a 20.
Right, that's why taking 10 and taking 20 said you can do the thing if you have enough time to do it properly. They did not say "just keep rolling until you hit a 20 lol"
> but you aren’t factoring in that I’m just taking a 3rd level Rogue and a 3rd level Wizard
I did factor that in. That is why the next part says
>By the time you start seeing DCs in that range with any regularity the rogue will be all but guaranteed to succeed with huge bonuses, and the wizard will be able to succeed in ways the rogue can't but will have to spend resources to do so.
I acknowledged it was a very high DC used on low level characters. My point was BOTH characters have improved tools to use in such situations as time goes by, a wizard's tools grant (potentially) drastically better results but consume resources and, like I said, rogues will hit guaranteed success territory.

>>96175602
Its amazing how 5e manages to make low level characters feel incompetent even if they might not be (big if), while simultaneously making high level enemies also severely incompetent. Its a massive clusterfuck. That red dragon should be finding out any first level character immediately, even the rogue. There should be no possible stealth checks that could succeed from a first level character against a level 17 dragon, ever. Hell, not even level 10 characters should be able to do it. That way lies dumbing down the setting into weak trash.

>>96179404
>>96180154
cont.

. Blindsight only means that the monster doesn’t need eyes (or light) to effectively “see”, but this doesn’t mean that it’s easier or harder to sneak past them under most circumstances.
How are you hiding from something that can see you directly? It'd be like hiding from someone while standing unobstructed in the line of sight.

Jeremy Crawford is an absolute idiot sometimes so his rulings should be taken with heaps of salt, but even he confirmed that you're only meant to be able to hide from blindsight if you have some form of cover or magic that obstructs it. You'd need something to hide behind, and the moment you break that cover to move it can see you. Why wouldn't it see you? The PHB says
>You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly
and the moment there's nothing between you and a creature with blindsight it can see you clearly. To be allowed to sneak within a dragon's blindsight you'd need a wall that covers your entire path, and you'd still need to pass the check. If you leave that wall even a moment you're spotted. I'd say that would definitely make it harder to sneak past anything that only relies on sight, where you could feasibly move past when they look away for a moment or move behind them, or even move fast enough to not be noticed.

>>96180271
> That red dragon should be finding out any first level character immediately, even the rogue

Why?

>>96180224
> Anon, it's TTRPG 101. You don't ask for repeated rolls because it's tedious and indicates that the roll is meaningless, because if you can roll 100 times without issue you're going to succeed eventually, unless the task is literally impossible for your character in which case you shouldn't be rolling.

Okay, but what if it’s only difficult? Say a +7 with thieves’ tools against a DC 20 lock and there’s guards 90 feet away moving 30 ft. per round, and this is a stealth mission so you don’t want anyone to know you were here nor to kill anyone. This isn’t exactly a hard scenario to imagine.

You really wouldn’t allow a second and third check if the first one fails?

That’s kind of a dick move, Anon.

> if failing does nothing do not roll if you respect your time or the table's time.
Okay, but that’s not the actual rules of the actual game, and I’m not interested in your crappy house rules.

>>96180271
While I think 5e's bounded numbers can be a problem, I don't think this example is actually a bad thing. Actually attempting to fight that dragon is unequivocal suicide up until a certain party level, but it's not a god. If you see one it's not "rocks fall everyone dies", it's "you better pray your plan works".

If your game is 100% no-roleplay dungeoncrawling then having it be possible to escape the notice of a powerful dragon makes the world feel more alive. It's inhabited by other beings with their own strengths and weaknesses. There are limits to it obviously, but it can make for interesting moments: it's highly unlikely but you feel amazing if you can pull it off. It's your one shot to survive this thing could kill you with literally less than one action.

On the other hand, the fact that a level 1 human fighter has a TWENTY PERCENT chance to beat the dragon in a test of pure strength is fucking ridiculous on every level. 26% if you count it as a test of the Athletics skill by the way. 1 in 4 chance for beginner adventurer to beat a dragon at an arm wrestle or escape its grasp. You need to give the fighter disadvantage AND the dragon advantage to get "realistic" odds of only ~5%.

>>96180343
>and there’s guards 90 feet away moving 30 ft. per round, and this is a stealth mission so you don’t want anyone to know you were here nor to kill anyone. This isn’t exactly a hard scenario to imagine.
Well then you can't keep rolling "over and over again can you"? Each roll has a consequence, you either lose time, make a sound that a guard can hear, or both. I specifically said don't do it if you can do infinitely and there are no consequences for failure "hurr durr but what if you can't do infinitely and there's consequences for failure?????"
>I’m not interested in your crappy house rules.
If you revel in the idea of arranging a game night just to waste the time of everyone at the table to satisfy your autism I can't stop you, but there's no need to be a cunt about it.

>>96180282
> How are you hiding from something that can see you directly?
Successfully, if you beat their Perception.

> and the moment there's nothing between you and a creature with blindsight it can see you clearly. To be allowed to sneak within a dragon's blindsight you'd need a wall that covers your entire path
Sure, or something else to that effect. But the point is that Blindsight does not hard counter Stealth checks. It doesn’t even impose disadvantage on them.

You’re also neglecting sound and other senses, which are perceived with the same Perception skill and covered up by the same Stealth skill. The wizard who’s turned into a beetle might be too small to see but he still needs to make Stealth checks to pass through unheard and possibly Deception checks to convince the dragon he’s beneath notice. Adult Reds have INT 16, they are fully aware that they live in ridiculous worlds of magic and that would-be thieves and slayers might include polymorphers who think no one’s ever thought of turning into a beetle.

>>96180394
> If you revel in the idea of arranging a game night just to waste the time of everyone at the table to satisfy your autism
Anon? I DM more often than not. I’m probably not the one rolling over and over, they are. If that’s how they choose to have their fun, I’m not going to stop them — least of all when they’re not breaking any rules.

>>96180361
> 1 in 4 chance for beginner adventurer to beat a dragon at an arm wrestle or escape its grasp

I mean, I don’t see an issue with the “escape it’s grasp” part, and as for the arm wrestling, an adult dragon is so big that there’s basically no way for it not to be the fighter’s whole body verses the dragon’s pinky. It’s not actually using its full strength.

This is a problem that did exist in earlier editions, though. In 3.5 an Adult Red has a Strength of 33, or a +11 modifier. This means that in a pure Strength v. Strength roll-off, it is actually possible for even a Strength 10 peasant to beat the dragon at arm wrestling.

>>96180411
>Successfully, if you beat their Perception.
Wrong, RAW explicitly states you cannot hide if you can be seen clearly. Doesn't matter what you roll.
>It doesn’t even impose disadvantage on them.
Right, but it most certainly does "mean that it’s harder to sneak past them under most circumstances". You need far more set up and there's a greater margin of error. A DM could say you could sneak past someone who might see you in theory, because regular sight isn't omnidirectional and always on. Blindsight is both.
>The wizard who’s turned into a beetle might be too small to see but he still needs to make Stealth checks to pass through unheard and possibly Deception checks to convince the dragon he’s beneath notice.
DM's decision ultimately. Yes magic exists, but what is the proportion of setting that is wizards? What proportion of those wizards are powerful enough to cast polymorph? What proportion of those wizards would the dragon believe to be brave enough to face it? If every powerful being raged against every insect, bird, rat, gust of wind of (because wizards can cast gaseous form), or servant (of which they have many, and any of which may be disguised or mind controlled by an opponent) it would be both impractical and exhausting.

You're right that it is very possible, and perhaps even extremely likely, that an insect gets discovered and immediately squashed by a dragon protecting its hoard. My point wasn't that it was a guaranteed method, but that it has its own benefits (like you said, they could use deception once discovered to act insignificant and beneath notice as an extra layer of security, it allows access to nooks and crannies the rogue can't use etc.) that a rogue can't replicate.

>>96180494
>as for the arm wrestling,
More of a random example. Replace it with tug of war or something else if you wish.
>I mean, I don’t see an issue with the “escape it’s grasp”
I feel 1 in 4 is a bit higher for someone who's slightly better than a foot solider to overcome the grasp of a dragon with. If they're worming out yeah, but with their own pure strength is wild.
>This is a problem that did exist in earlier editions, though. In 3.5 an Adult Red has a Strength of 33, or a +11 modifier. This means that in a pure Strength v. Strength roll-off, it is actually possible for even a Strength 10 peasant to beat the dragon at arm wrestling.
I'm being pretty unfair to the game system with my complaints. It's a nigh unavoidable issue in most systems without bloating modifiers even higher. Obviously in practice if you have an issue with it you can pull the common sense card and say "yeah I don't care what the modifiers say there's no way you just push the dragon over" where applicable, just a silly thing to laugh at online. And if you are going for a heroic tone, then it's really all the better.

>>96180501
> that a rogue can't replicate.
I mean, Rogues get Use Magic Device. Or Thieves do, anyway. Real Rogues, not dungeon-delving assassins who moonlight in larceny.

Also if we’re talking 11th level or higher then if Stealth is possible AT ALL then the Rogue literally cannot fail unless the dragon is actively searching rather than simply relying on passive Perception, since the Rogue’s worst result even when wearing Dick Van Dyke’s one-man-band outfit is still sufficient to beat the dragon’s passive Perception. The Rogue Conan even bring his own mundane tools to make things easier; a cloak done up to look like a pile of gold, say. Magicians are also real Rogues. A cardboard box.

>>96180536
If we’re talking house rules then in a pure Strength-off I’d say that each size category above Medium multiplies your roll by 2. So x2 for Large, x4 for Huge, x8 for Gargantuan. Each size category down from Medium reduces it by one-quarter, rounded down, to a minimum result of 0. So 3/4 result for Small, 1/2 for Tiny, and 1/4 for Diminutive.

That means a 10-Strength Diminutive creature has a max result of 5, while a Gargantuan creature with 10 Strength has a minimum result of 8, and could get as high as 80.

>>96180558
> The Rogue Conan even
*The Rogue can.

>>96180361
>having it be possible to escape the notice of a powerful dragon
You can still have this with creatures that can easily find 1st through 10nth stealthed rogues or are so powerful that it takes four level 15 adventurers to kill. Its as simple as they just don't care about the pathetic creatures living their lives when it goes out to eat. When you see a dragon flying over head you should feel terror, and even the rogue desperately hiding in the shadows should know on an instinctual level that they're not hidden from this terrible beast.

>>96180309
Level 17 mighty dragon. Thats why. Its an absurd monster of unparalleled power compared to most creatures who are not demigods or demigod equivalents. Honestly, having creatures no first level adventurer could possibly do anything against adds a level of prestige and power to these beings that is stripped away by bounded accuracy. An archdevil or demon lord, even a weak nascent one should be an unwinnable nightmare for even the largest army. These are things which rule over entire fiendish realms, they shouldn't be able to be taken down by a few hundred archers and peasant soldiers, because this implies that a few dozen even more powerful fiends should have ganged up and ganked that demonlord or nascent one ages ago.

It adds compounding idocy to every layer of power by having 5es bounded accuracy.

>>96180617
> Level 17 mighty dragon
That’s a shitty-ass reason given that we’re not talking about slaying the dragon, we’re talking about a professionally stealthy person being able to sneak past him, if that professionally stealthy person is EXTREMELY lucky.

> An archdevil or demon lord, even a weak nascent one should be an unwinnable nightmare for even the largest army.
Well given that most archdevils and demon lords in 5e are flat immune to nonmagical physical damage, they are. But we’re not talking about archdevils or demon lords, we’re talking about an Adult Red dragon, which is powerful but hardly “unparalleled”. Dragons are the mightiest of mortal creatures but they are, ultimately, mortal.

That being said just because an ordinary arrow CAN damage an Adult Red, doesn’t mean that an army of peasant archers actually CAN beat a centuries-old wyrm with a genius intellect. The dragon is smart enough to know that 1,000 archers with longbows can actually harm it if it gets within 600 feet, but also wealthy enough to buy literal tons of oil and alchemist’s fire that it can drop from 601 feet in the air.

>>96178471
Last time I had a DM running Planescape, the guy was a schizo who goes on a bitchfit over every tiny complain.
Which was a shame because otherwise the guy is the only big nerd (that actually watched everything from Superjail to Monogatari) I know of. Didn't help that the table was full of zoomers other than me and one other guy that likes to go missing mid-sessions without saying anything.

>>96178822
>King Arthur wasn't breaking doors with a kick and eating rocks for breakfast.
King Arthur absolutely could do that, but also even your conception of him can't be played in 5e.

>5e made a choice of keeping power levels withing a certain range
It does this inconsistently and without much thought for gameplay, style, or even consistency. The reason for keeping power levels within such bounds is simply to make it easier for them to balance, even though bounded accuracy would've had them. Your level 20 character who can go for a swim in lava, walk off the damage, and then recover it all with a 15 minute nap? The guy who can fall off mountain tops and survive barely harmed, and fight dragons with nothing but his fists? Yeah he can't kick down a wooden door 20% of the time still, because the designers wanted DCs to keep going in 5's.

>>96180617
I'm in agreement with >>96180743
The dragon is still mortal. It being one of the most formidable foes you could ever face in a fight does not mean it has to automatically be an insurmountable challenge in anything that isn't fight related. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to sneak past it or lie to it or trick it at a low. Doing so should be very difficult and/or require extreme luck, but mortals do those same things to actual, legitimate GODS in mythology. Dragons shouldn't be above it just because they're strong.

>>96174952
Least rich elf in Hell.

>>96176711
>In 1e and 2e, this would mean rolling a d20 and trying roll under your Strength score.
I see you haven't actually played them. This is untrue, and further, 1e and 2e are explicitly meant to be low power games. There are no abilities and pulling extra HP out of your asshole, you don't get class features at a set rate that turns you into a god, and many things that can kill you at level 1 will seriously injure you many levels down the line as well.
Even so, it manages to be consistent in its intended scope of power. The level 20 fighter is Conan, not a superhero like in 5e who suddenly becomes incompetent when asked to make a skill check.

>In 3e, you're instead rolling a d20 and adding your Strength modifier
Wrong. You can either attack the door and just try to deal damage, or use Strength. You can also choose to Take 10.
For even a Level 1 fighter, this means he can kick down a wooden door (DC 13) every single time if he has even a mediocre Strength of 16.
You can easily get to a starting Strength of 20 though, and even more easily get into a Strength of 30-40 through leveling and items. This is before considering prestige classes.

>>96178153
>I actually asked the DM if I could just pretend I’d rolled a 9 instead because I hated the idea of not having a penalty to Wisdom (where I was putting my 10). I actually wanted to go lower, I asked for a 7, but the DM wouldn’t let me go that low.
This sounds made up.

>>96175673
>Rogues are actually better than wizards at most things that a wizard might try to do to emulate a rogue in practice.
They aren't, but also a Wizard can just do more things a Rogue can't even try to emulate.
No way to sneak past the guard up ahead? Sleep/Charm Person. Need to get up somewhere high? Jump, and if that's not enough you have a familiar that can probably fly. Trying to stay out of sight? Silent Image. Trying to get down from somewhere high? Feather Fall. Camping and need to keep watch? Alarm. You want to disguise yourself to sneak in somewhere? The spell's literally called Disguise Self. Looking for secrets in a dungeon? Detect Magic. Need to run away? Longstrider. Want to just break the game? Silvery Barbs.
Oh, and these are all just Level 1 and your options get exponentially better every 2 levels.

>>96181009
Nope. I obviously don't have a way to prove it, but I can prove that I've brought it up before. Hang on, lemme do some digging...

https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/46833106/#46837414

There we go, reference to having done it back in 2016, when we were still in the middle of the campaign.

>>96181081
>Oh, and these are all just Level 1
And you get not more than two of them per 8 hour period. Make 'em count...

>>96180494
It was stupid as fuck and I complained about it then, but there was also a consistent pattern of applying a +4 bonus per size category difference to checks like that.

>>96180494
>This is a problem that did exist in earlier editions, though. In 3.5 an Adult Red has a Strength of 33, or a +11 modifier. This means that in a pure Strength v. Strength roll-off
You wouldn't make pure Strength v Strength roll offs in 3.5e, you'd get your size bonus as well. An Adult Dragon would have a +44 to that roll.

>>96181083
A lie being old does not make it gradually become true.

>>96181109 >>96181111
>but there was also a consistent pattern of applying a +4 bonus per size category difference to checks like that.
To Strength checks? Maybe in your homebrew, but IIRC the size bonus was to bull rush, grapple, trip, and overrun checks. Arm wrestling is none of those.

>>96181127
Sure, but why would I lie for that long in totally different contexts?

That being said, I'm game for proving it, if you can come up with some way for me to do so, 'cause damned if I can think of anything. I didn't exactly record the character creation session.

>>96181095
Actually, you get three of them with a brief rest, and you can use many of them freely and repeatedly through ritual casting. Alarm, Detect Magic, Detect Poison and Disease, Identify, Purify Food and Drink, Speak with Animals, and Unseen Servant/Tenser's Floating Disk are some pretty noteworthy examples.
There's also your Familiar whom you can use constantly. On top of all of that? The number of spells you get to use per rest increases with every level.

>>96181131
Those are opposed Strength checks.

>>96181161
Yes, they are, but the mounting +4 bonus is specifically said to apply to THOSE opposed Strength checks, not ALL opposed Strength checks.

>>96181131
>but IIRC
Sorry, you don't. I was talking about grappling, but for arm wrestling the dragon just wins by default every single time.

>In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger. When two characters arm wrestle, for example, the stronger character simply wins

>>96181147
>Sure, but why would I lie for that long
You seem like the kind of retard that would pathologically lie, honestly. It's even weird that you felt you needed to address my post and go digging through archives to "prove" it wrong. Why are you so defensive over something that to most people is meaningless?

>That being said, I'm game for proving it
Sure you are, go find the GM who said it.

>>96181156
That's also more spells then you'd possibly have in your spellbook at 1st level character creation. I'm counting you naming about 15 or so spells between those two posts of yours? But you start with only 6. So you're acting on the assumption that you've already somehow been able to add 9 additional spells. Even assuming you found them all in the same spellbook that you got as loot from somewhere, that's 450 gp your wizard has spent.

Does the 1st level Rogue also get 450 gp to spend on whatever he wants, PLUS loot from some previous adventure that contains exactly what he needs?

>>96174372 (OP)
Actual meaningful bonuses at level 1 and a lack of a dogshit idea like bounded accuracy.

>>96181183
>You seem like the kind of retard that would pathologically lie, honestly.
...lol no u? How the heck am I supposed to respond to that? "Alright then, I am the Messiah, now fuck off?"

>Sure you are, go find the GM who said it.
I mean he's physically sitting about seven feet away from me right now, but even if I were to, like, make a video of him confirming this story as true and posting it, you have no way of knowing that he actually is the DM, or if he is, that he's telling the truth.

>>96178822
And guess what? The game STILL goes to shit at higher levels so what the fuck did it fix?

>>96181208
>That's also more spells then you'd possibly have in your spellbook at 1st level character creation
Ok?

>So you're acting on the assumption that you've already somehow been able to add 9 additional spells.
It takes 2 hours and 50 GP to transcribe a new 1st level spell after finding one, anon, it's not particularly hard and it is assumed that Wizards will take the best spells they can, and then use their money and downtime to get more. Unless you're playing in some homebrew garbage where scrolls don't exist, this is simply how the game works.
It's fine if you don't like to play it how everyone else does, but that's not what we use to judge a system by.

>Does the 1st level Rogue also get 450 gp to spend on whatever he wants
Sure. Thing is, there's not much he can spend it on that's going to be useful to how his class functions. Frankly, the smartest use of spells and gold is sometimes just buying a scroll of something the Wizard can learn and use to buff up the party anyways.

>>96181230
>...lol no u?
Really not beating the allegations.

>I mean he's physically sitting about seven feet away from me right now, but even if I were to, like, make a video of him confirming this story as true and posting it, you have no way of knowing that he actually is the DM, or if he is, that he's telling the truth.
Here come the excuses. You know, a non-pathological liar would've laughed off an anonymous stranger calling some story of theirs bullshit 3 posts ago. But here you are, continuing to double down.

>>96181230
>My GM from 9 years ago was autistic and stupid enough to refuse to let me choose to take a -3 to my stat roll, but was cool with me taking a -1
This was believable, I've met autists who are inconsistent and annoying like that, but
>Also he's totes sitting right here infront of me right now, we're best bros even if he is an insufferable autist whose behavior I've been complaining about for 9 years
Lolwut?

>>96177975
He certainly has not.

>>96174372 (OP)
A high rank in the relevant trait relative to the trait cap, of course.

>>96175020
Why are there game mechanics that only some characters can interface with? As long as this question can be asked of a game, it's a bad game.

>>96175204
Stop replying to yourself.

>>96176034
Your attitude doesn't change your character's chances of succeeding on a roll. Don't reply.

>>96176168
So the game is bad, then.

>>96180361
>On the other hand, the fact that a level 1 human fighter has a TWENTY PERCENT chance to beat the dragon in a test of pure strength
you're ignoring size modifiers.

>>96181274
>Thing is, there's not much he can spend it on that's going to be useful to how his class functions

I mean...

>No way to sneak past the guard up ahead
Disguise. If the thief is not proficient themselves, a skilled hireling can be hired to apply the disguise for 2 gp per day. A disguise kit costs 25 gp.

>Need to get up somewhere high?
Hempen rope (1 gp/50 ft) plus grappling hook (2 gp). Silken rope (10 gp/50 ft) if you want something lighter. Pitons cost 5 cp; knives (2gp) can also be used to aid in climbing.

>Trying to stay out of sight?
Stealth skill. 0 gp.

>Trying to get down from somewhere high?
Hempen rope (1 gp/50 ft). Silken rope (10 gp/50 ft) if you want something lighter.

>Camping and need to keep watch?
This one I admit I have nothing for, because Alarm is a complete bullshit spell and always has been for the fact that there is no way around it other than a 3rd level spell. Still, bullshit or not it is RAW, so I'll give it to you.

>You want to disguise yourself to sneak in somewhere?
Disguise. If the thief is not proficient, a skilled hireling can be hired to apply the disguise for 2 gp per day. A disguise kit costs 25 gp.

>Looking for secrets in a dungeon? Detect Magic.
That only works for magic, and is blocked by extremely common barriers (1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, 3 feet of wood or dirt). You're a lot better off with the Perception check (0 gp).

>Need to run away? Longstrider.
No easy Rogue equivalent here at 1st level, but at 2nd level the Rogue gets Cunning Action and can Dash as a bonus action and is strictly better than Longstrider. Cunning Action is the class' real workhorse feature, not Sneak Attack.

>>96174372 (OP)
Let's do a comparison. In most editions of D&D, to be considered reasonably good at something, a character supposedly should have about a 60 to 75% chance of success each roll. However, most editions are quite badly balanced and it is possible to be completely off the RNG in either direction, and in other editions, it's the opposite, where the RNG is always vastly more important than your modifier. Both are undesirable, and one or the other is nearly guaranteed with a flat distribution without design review and balancing by competent, experienced designers who understand the mathematical foundations of the system along with a generous amount of destructive play-testing, which no edition of D&D has ever involved.

Now let's consider a better game. Instead of a flat distribution, your rank in a trait determines how many dice you roll. The more dice, the more successes you might get. There is no automatic failure and it isn't possible to automatically succeed, and there are no hard caps in either direction - adding 1 to your rank is always beneficial, and your probability of succeeding or dealing at least 1 damage can be arbitrarily close to zero or 1, but can never reach either. The nearest thing to "rolling a 1" is failing to roll any successes. The chance of a die not granting any successes is 1 in 2. With a rank of 10, the odds of rolling no successes is 1 in 1024, becoming twice as unlikely with every +1 in rank. Thus it is basically impossible for a highly-skilled character to completely botch an attempt, just as we'd expect, and you can always spend Resolve to roll bonus dice and re-roll your attempts.

All of this is accomplished with a resolution system that is faster to run and easier to understand than any edition of D&D, and requires almost no math, and no tracking of piles of fiddly bullshit bonuses and penalties.

>>96180361
There is no dice roll involved for a test of pure strength. If the test is lifting, you just compare your overhead lift capacity to the weight of the object.

>>96180361
There is no dice roll for arm wrestling. You just compare strength scores.

>>96181414

I do not see an issue with 1d20 for resolution. I think it is fine when the modifiers are reasonably satisfying, like in D&D 4e. On the other hand, I do not think 5e's brand of "bounded accuracy" is fine, particularly when proficiency bonus is still a paltry +2.

>>96181431
Try reading the post for an explanation of the issue.

>>96181313
>Lolwut?
That's my question, Anon. I wasn't complaining, I just said that I would have preferred an even lower Wisdom than 9 but he wouldn't let me.

>>96181291
>Here come the excuses
No, I'm just pointing out that if you're acting on the assumption that I'm a pathological liar, then there's no reason for you to assume that any person I post saying "I am his GM from that game and he's telling the truth" is actually true, because to you that GM is Just Some Guy.

>You know, a non-pathological liar would've laughed off an anonymous stranger calling some story of theirs bullshit 3 posts ago
Maybe, but only if you assume that the only reason I'm contesting this is because I'm a pathological liar trying to cover my ass. There are other, equally valid possibilities, however.

For example, have you considered the possibility that I'm honest, but I'm also just an argumentative bastard? I've described myself as such in the past.

https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/57673930/#57680053

>>96181394
You can tie up bell or can alarms as an alternative to Alarm, it's not a really good alternative but it is one.

>>96181394
You don't need anything for "camping and need to keep watch". You can just stand watch.

>>96181457
I was going as RAW as possible, and believe it or not, the PHB equipment list doesn't include string.

It has rope but that's not a very good alarm, it's too visible.

>>96181465
>You can just stand watch.
If I had said that, Anon would have just countered that the thief does eventually need to sleep sometime, which is true. Plus Alarm just is a spell that I hate because it's a hard counter to any attempt to sneak up on a location unless you hit the location with Dispel Magic first. A 1st level ward shouldn't need a 3rd level spell to counter it.

>>96181489
Yes, you do need to sleep, which is why you take watches in shifts. Did you think I meant the thief has to stand watch the entire night by himself? Why would anyone do that?

Alarm alerts you, but it doesn't actually tell you where the triggering creature is. The caster can be confused as to the number of creatures by rapidly touching or entering and exiting the area over and over again. Also, if you know your target is attempting to rest and recover spells, you can use Alarm against them by setting it off on purpose, making them think they're about to be attacked and causing them to make ready instead of resting. You can even cast your own Alarm on your target, make it audible, and set it to detect whatever type your target is, to disrupt their sleep or memorization.

>>96181394
>Disguise with a skilled hireling
Alright so the rogue has no solution here then, since we've given this example separately.
>Hempen rope (1 gp/50 ft) plus grappling hook (2 gp)
Only works in some places, and you're flipping a coin to see if you fall and die, too, on top of having to expend actually limited resources.
>Stealth skill.
Flipping a coin where the wizard gets it every time.
>Hempen rope
Flip a coin to see if you pass the roll.
>This one I admit I have nothing for, because Alarm is a complete bullshit spell
I cast Calm Beasts.
>Disguise
The rogue is now out even more GP and all they get out of it is a roll off, or nothing. Afterall, most of the time, your skilled hireling won't be available and can't go sneaking around with you, unless you want to cut your already low odds of success by half.
>That only works for magic
Most secrets are magic.
>You're better off with the perception check
Good news! The Wizard gets to make this check anyways, is likely better at it than the rogue , and for perceiving magical things he never fails, unlike the rogue who often, and at times would always fail.
>No easy Rogue equivalent here at 1st level
I accept your concession.

>>96181442
Yeah ok you're definitely manipulative at the least, and now I actually don't believe your story.

>>96181563
So the wizard actually starts with 7 spells?

>>96181577
Retard.

>>96181579
I accept your concession.

>>96181584
Nope, I accept yours.

>>96181577
Uh no, because in the brain of a terminal nogames the only thing that matters is character creation. Nothing ever happens beyond making your character.

>>96181539
True Sight and See Invisibility counter Invisibility, but not stealth and disguise.
3 gold and a coin flip is certainly preferable to wasting a spell slot on something as shitty as Spider Climb or Levitate.
Calm Beasts doesn't do anything to people standing watch.
You don't have any way of knowing that most secrets are magic in any particular campaign.
The rogue is obviously better at perception than any wizard.
I accept your concession.

>>96181442
>No, I'm just pointing out that if you're acting on the assumption that I'm a pathological liar
There was no assumption, it's just an observation.

>[More excuses]
Don't care, you had your bluff called and failed it.

>Maybe, but only if you assume that the only reason I'm contesting this is because I'm a pathological liar trying to cover my ass
I like how even here, you can't actually say anything truthful. You contested it because pathological liars hate being doubted and have an impulsive need to be believed.

No sane, non-retarded person cares what strangers online say and nobody but a pathological liar would have reacted to someone saying "This sounds made up", in response to an innocuous and meaningless story, by digging through archives to try and convince them.
If you were argumentative, you'd know there is no argument to be had over something like that, so there's no point. It's pretty obvious that you just lie compulsively.

>>96181604
Levitate is absolutely OP and peak utility spell

You forfeit any right to participate in balance discussions.

>>96181337
/thread

>>96181604
>True Sight and See Invisibility counter Invisibility
Exactly. Casters counter other casters, which is part of what makes them so powerful because non-casters like the Rogue have no answers.
For example, the Wizard typically will have advantage on perception rolls just through his familiar. And that's if the GM is being harsh and doesn't afford both Familiar and Wizard with perception rolls.

>3 gold and a coin flip is certainly preferable to wasting a spell slot
The spell slots are infinitely renewable. In many situations though, you only get one chance to succeed.
If the Wizard and Rogue were both running away from a monster, the Wizard could use a spell slot to just escape. The Rogue? He flips a coin and dies if he calls it wrong.

>You don't have any way of knowing that most secrets are magic
Sure do, as I play games.

>The rogue is obviously better at perception than any wizard.
No actually, the rogue will always be worse unless he sacrifices his ability to do everything else his class is actually meant to.

>>96181654
lol completely ignored the other half of the sentence. since you didn't read my post, I won't read yours.

>>96181657
>Buttmad nogaems ragequits the argument
Tale as old as /tg/.

Feel free to read and respond to my entire post, then, unless you'd prefer to ragequit the argument.

>>96181539
>and you're flipping a coin to see if you fall and die
Not if you're practicing proper rope climbing safety. You tie yourself to the rope. Duh. Literal children learn this in middle school, Anon.

>Alright so the rogue has no solution here then
You don't actually need proficiency with a Disguise kit to use it, and your hypothetical wizard needed 450 gp to even begin competing. You're just jealous that the Rogue figured out a way to accomplish the same thing on a budget.

>on top of having to expend actually limited resources.
...ropes don't cease to exist once they've been climbed, Anon.

>Flipping a coin where the wizard gets it every time.
Not really. A silent image is mute, static, and depends pretty heavily on the observer not noticing the new barrel that appeared out of nowhere, or the room suddenly being shorter than it was (and approaching from exactly the right angle). It's also still fundamentally dependent on the Wizard's Stealth; perhaps that column has always been here, but did you just hear a sneeze? Per RAW a Silent Image doesn't obviate the need for a Stealth check to go unnoticed. People can hear you just fine.

>The rogue is now out even more GP
The Rogue by my math has spent, at most, about 50 gp to the Wizard's 450.

>Most secrets are magic.
That's just a lie. False bottoms to dress, hidden doors, secret compartments, disguised levers, false bookcases...

>The Wizard gets to make this check anyways, is likely better at it than the rogue
Mmn...speaking personally, while my Rogue had a -1 Wisdom, she also had Proficiency and Expertise in Perception at 1st level (along with Stealth), and so had a +3 bonus. And Perception isn't a Wizard class skill, but it is a Rogue one, and a pretty essential one to boot. So unless a Wizard is rocking a 16+ Wisdom (why?), I'd say it's fairly likely that the Rogue's better at it.

>and for perceiving magical things he never fails
Excepting for the specific and common ways in which it can fail...

>>96181592
Anon, I accepted the idea that the wizard somehow found a spellbook that had the exact spells he needed to counter the Rogue, I just required if that's the case and he had the 450 gp needed to copy them all into his book, then the Rogue by rights should also be presumed to have 450 gp to play with.

>>96181654
Why did you ragequit the argument?

>>96181616
>You contested it because pathological liars hate being doubted
But then honest folk also hate being doubted, so this proves...what, exactly?

.No sane, non-retarded person cares what strangers online say
Sure, but whether or not I'm insane or retarded, has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a pathological liar. Insane, retarded people can still be honest, or at least what they perceive to be honest (i.e., "the government stole my teeth!" isn't a lie if the insane retard genuinely believes that the government stole his teeth, even if it's not factually true).

>by digging through archives
It wasn't exactly hard, mind. I have certain stock phrases I use a lot 'cause I like them ("I'm an argumentative bastard" being one of them), and it has the side-effect of making it easy to track down past posts I've made.

>you'd know there is no argument to be had over something like that, so there's no point
I mean that's self-evidently not true, we're having an argument right now over it.

I think you might be confused, let me clarify: when I say "argumentative bastard", I don't mean I like being right or proving I'm right, even though I am right, all the time, whether or not I want to be.

I just mean I like the argument itself. The back and forth over nothing important. I find it fun.

>>96181663
>Not if you're practicing proper rope climbing safety. You tie yourself to the rope. Duh.
Sorry, the rules say the DC remains the same. If your GM is particularly forgiving, you might turn your 50% failure rate into a 25% failure rate, but that's as good as it gets.

>You don't actually need proficiency with a Disguise kit
Seems like you missed the point, and still have no solution for the rogue in that situation.

>...ropes don't cease to exist
I don't know why you seem to think they did, anon.

>Not really. A silent image is mute, static, and depends pretty heavily on the observer not noticing the new barrel that appeared out of nowhere
There's nothing to notice in that situation. You don't get an automatic roll against silent image, and so it simply works by default. Likewise for the rest of what you said, sorry but the rules don't say so anywhere, so it doesn't work like that.

>The Rogue by my math has spent, at most, about 50 gp
Well anon, nobody ever said you were good at math. Do you not understand how money works btw? If you spend more of it, you're out of more of it. Simple concept.

>That's just a lie.
It's 100% true, though? Almost all secrets are magical in nature.
>False bottoms to dress
Ahhh, you're a thirdie. That explains why you don't actually know the rules. Go find an official 5e module with at least 50 non-magical secrets in it, I'll wait.

>Mmn...speaking personally, while my Rogue had a -1 Wisdom, she also had Proficiency and Expertise in Perception at 1st level (along with Stealth), and so had a +3 bonus
Alright, so your rogue is *way* worse at perceiving things than the Wizard.
>I'd say
You'd need to read the rules to have a say. The Wizard gets advantage and starts with a +3 in Perception by the way.

>Excepting for
Sorry, there aren't any exceptions, unless you think the rogue (Why do you keep calling him a thief btw? nogames?) can see through several feet of dirt.

>>96181708
>But then honest folk also hate being doubted
No they don't. It's interesting that you assume everyone else operates the same way your mentally ill mind does, though.

>Sure, but whether or not I'm insane or retarded, has nothing to do with
If you're insane and retarded as you seem to be admitting, that kinda just sums up the point. All pathological liars are low IQ retards btw.

>It wasn't exactly hard
Here come more excuses.

>I mean that's self-evidently not true
And more lies, too.

>>96181654
>the Wizard typically will have advantage on perception rolls just through his familiar
Assuming he has the spell Find Familiar, and assuming his Familiar is summoned and present. Both are big asks for a 1st level character.

>The spell slots are infinitely renewable
Yes, but at any given point in time you only have access to, at most, two of them at 1st level. So if you have Silent Image for the perfect hideaway and Longstrider for the perfect getaway, it means you don't have Sleep or Disguise Self to get past the guards, Jump to climb the tower, Charm Person to woo the princess, or Silvery Barbs to whatever you thought you were going to use it for.

>>96181676
>to counter the Rogue
*to sub in for the Rogue, rather.

>>96181748
>Assuming he has the spell Find Familiar
Who doesn't take this at Level 1 with how good it is?
>Both are big asks
It is literally impossible to not be able start with the ability to summon a Familiar. You haven't played the game, have you?
>You only have access to, at most, two of them
You start with 5 across Cantrips and 1st Level. And you can refresh 1 with a brief rest.
>Aha, but you can't do every single thing all at once!
Sure, and neither can the Rogue. The key difference is that the Wizard can prepare for whatever he needs to with a rest, while the Rogue is locked into his choices at character creation and has no alternatives. Low INT or CHA? Sorry, you can't disguise yourself well. Dumped WIS? No perception for you. Spent your Expertise on Perception? You either can't pick locks worth shit or you can't be stealthy very well.
And even when you are doing something you're prepared for, you've still got to roll a die. More often than not, the Caster just succeeds.

>>96181748
>Assuming he has the spell Find Familiar, and assuming his Familiar is summoned and present. Both are big asks for a 1st level character.
They aren't though. Most GMs will just let you start with your Familiar because it's such a no-brainer and just wastes everybody's time otherwise.
Besides, what retard doesn't take one? Have you never even once played a Wizard? They're typically treated like an FPV drone that you can cast touch spells through.

>>96181720
>Sorry, the rules say the DC remains the same
The DC is to climb the rope. Failing to climb the rope does nto mean you fall and die if you are secured to the rope by some means and thus physically cannot impact the ground. If you're tied to the rope by 5 feet of additional rope, and you fall an Athletics check badly enough to fall, you still will only fall 5 feet and thus take no damage.

Look, I broke the system and I didn't even need Silvery Barbs to do it. Rogues really are superior to Wizards, because Rogues actually think creatively and critically.

>Seems like you missed the point, and still have no solution for the rogue in that situation.
Delegation is an important skill for any Rogue to learn. It's Ocean's 11, not Ocean's 1.

>I don't know why you seem to think they did, anon.
Because you talked about them like they were an expendable resource? Unless you were referring to the gold, which is laughable. Gold is the least-valuable resource an adventurer can have.

>You don't get an automatic roll against silent image, and so it simply works by default
Yes, but what is actually working? Based on the spell description, it creates a believable image. Nothing about the spell says that it actually makes you stealthier.

>Well anon, nobody ever said you were good at math
Disguise kit (25 gp)
100 ft. of rope (silken, 20 gp)
Grappling hook (2 gp)
Hireling (2 gp/day). One hireling is sufficient for multiple disguises.
TOTAL: 49 gp, +2 gp/day

Um...no, I actually seem to be pretty good at it. That is, in fact, "about" 50 gp. Did you really think a Rogue didn't know how to count money, regardless of its value?

cont'd...

>>96181819
cont'd...

>Go find an official 5e module with at least 50 non-magical secrets in it
Oh, we're limiting ourselves strictly to published modules? Then no way in fuck your wizard has all those spells, then. No published module gives a 1st level character access to a spellbook that contains them. Spell scrolls in general are kind of thin on the ground in most of the modules I've played or ran (Tyranny of Dragons, Out of the Abyss, Curse of Strahd, Storm King's Thunder, Tomb of Annihilation, in that order, for the record), in fact; wizards mostly gain spells by levelling up, but since we're limiting ourselves to 1st level characters...

>>96181720
>The Wizard gets advantage
Only while the Familiar lives and is not unsummoned to Faerie or wherever. It's not a constant advantage.

>Why do you keep calling him a thief btw? nogames?
No, habit. When I started playing the game, that's what the class was called. Further when I think of D&D Rogues, I think of MY Rogue, who is very much a thief by trade and, in 5e, has the Thief subclass starting at 3rd level. But mostly it's the first thing.

>can see through several feet of dirt.
I think they're gonna be around as good at finding things like hidden levers and so on; possibly better since they're more likely to do things like ball bearings to test a room's slope, chalk dust to look for air currents, etc.

This is all missing the point that the Rogue is still a totally incompetent fuckwit still at the mercy of the dice because they get a whole 10% improvement from training and a 20% improvement on two whole skills until level 5.

If a mechanical complaint sticks around for 11 years, longer since Touhoufag has hated it since Next playtesting, and you can't actually disprove it, just shift to 'but ackshually it's a good thing' you have a mechanical problem.

>>96181819
>The DC is to climb the rope
And the DC stays the same. And if you fail, you fall off the rope.
>does nto mean you fall and die if you are secured to the rope by some means and thus physically cannot impact the ground
Correct, instead it means the rope breaks or otherwise fails in a way that causes you to slip and fall and be unable to climb. If the GM is nice, they may give you advantage on the check for your foresight, but that's all.

>Look, I broke the system
Ignoring the rules isn't breaking the system, anon. It's just you showing that your class of choice is really bad at doing even simple things, unless the rules are changed.

>Delegation is an important skill
I agree! This is why it's important to have a balanced diversity of casters in any group to cover any lacking spells or capabilities.
But anyways, I accept that the rogue has nothing he can do here where the Wizard does.

>Because you talked about them like they were an expendable resource?
No, I didn't? I understand that you're a bit deficient in the reading comprehension department, but what I said was a non-renewable resource was GP, because it is.
>Gold is the least-valuable resource
Oh ok, so you've abandoned your earlier complaints and admit that the Wizard has an easy solution to all of the problems a rogue would face and can handle them better than he can. I accept this.

>Yes, but what is actually working?
The spell? Try reading harder, anon.

>TOTAL: 49 gp, +2 gp/day
So you were infact off? That's hilarious, even though you misunderstood what I meant.

>>96181857
>Oh, we're limiting ourselves
Oh no, you want to make things up now to help your point hahahaha
>Then no way in fuck your wizard has all those spells, then.
He would arguably have far more, true. Anyways, since you admit you can't argue your claim, I accept that the Wizard is better at finding secrets than the rogue by a country mile, too.

>>96181727
>No they don't.
Prove it.

>as you seem to be admitting
I was not, please try again.

>are low IQ retards
Unremarkable, actually; back in high school I was given an actual IQ test by teachers trying to figure out why my grades were bad (somehow the fact that I just didn't do homework because I was bone-idle lazy didn't occur to them?) and I ended up with 127, which is, while above average, nothing to write home about.

>And more lies, too.
Anon, we're literally arguing, right now. It is self-evidently true that there is an argument to be had because we're having it as we type.

>>96181881
Get yourself checked for ADHD

>>96181857
>Only while the Familiar lives
So pretty much always? Got it, the Wizard is better than the Rogue at perceiving 99% of the time.
And in return for that 1%, the Rogue uh, has to give up expertise in a core skill.

>No, habit. When I started playing the game, that's what the class was called
Pfffffttttt
>subclass
Ahahahaha, it's so painfully obvious that you aren't actually familiar with the game when you don't even know what things are called.

>I think they're gonna be around as good
I like how you've changed from "They're better" to "W-well they could be as good". But, no, they'll strictly be worse because the Wizard gets advantage even when looking for mundane, entirely non-magical secrets thanks to his Familiar.

>possibly better since they're more likely to do things
Nah, Martial players tend to be extremely fucking stupid (You're doing a good job of demonstrating that), which is why they gravitate to simple classes with as few mechanics as possible. Caster players tend to be smarter (And, obviously, play more intelligent characters) who prefer the ingenuity and creative thinking that casting encourages and allows for.

>>96181881
>Prove it.
Nah, I'm honest and know it for a fact. I don't give a shit what an insane retarded liar believes.

>I was not
You were, just in that roundabout deceptive way that compulsive liars like to do. See, you're fucking dumb so you think it works because you can go "Um, acktually I didn't technically say that".

>Unremarkable, actually; back in high school I was given an actual IQ test by teachers
Your first impulse? Lie, lie, and keep lying.

>Anon, we're literally arguing
Gaslighting too. Keep going, it's funny watching a proto lolcow sperg out.

>>96181794
>Who doesn't take this at Level 1 with how good it is?
You mean to tell me you can't think of six better 1st level spells to have?

>And you can refresh 1 with a brief rest.
*At any given point in time*, said I. You gotta try reading if you wanna be any good at this Wizard thing, you know.
As for cantrips, they aren't an expendible resource, but none of them are any good at subbing in for a Rogue. Maybe if wizards got Guidance, since that does add an average of +2 to a skill check, equaling the bonus of Expertise at 1st level. But they don't, so...

>AHA! The Rogue is locked in to bad chocies!
1st level Rogue, default human:
>Str 11, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 9, Cha 14
>Acrobatics +5, Deception +4, Perception +3(ex), Stealth +7(ex), Thieves' Tools +5
Note that I have not factored in two additional skills the Thief would have from Background, since we're just talking class.
This Rogue has a pretty good chance of doing everything you suggested in your original post within the context of facing 1st level challenges and DCs. The only potentially dicey area is Climbing.

>More often than not, the Caster just succeeds.
Almost none of the spells you suggested are "just succeeds". More on that in the next post since I need the characters.

>>96181910
>You mean to tell me
Oh so you really haven't played the game. Ok lol.

>*At any given point in time*, said I
You clearly don't understand what that means, which is funny. Sorry anon, but a spell slot you can recover is a spell slot you can end up using.

>As for cantrips, they aren't an expendible resource
Expendable*, thirdie
>but none of them are any good at subbing in for a Rogue.
Actually Mage Hand is a pretty good substitute in many situations. Minor Illusion and Prestidigitation are also extremely good.

>This Rogue has a pretty good chance of doing everything you suggested
50% or worse isn't a "pretty good chance". Considering the Wizard has a 100% chance that's, uh, really fucking terrible actually.

>Almost none of the spells you suggested are "just succeeds".
Actually, they all are. You've already given up attempts to claim they aren't in admitting you don't know how the rules work, so I'm not re-litigating this; Sorry, you just don't play games.

>>96181873
I mean yeah but the autist clearly doesn't want to admit that as being a problem.
Martialtards in general have never wanted to admit to the core issue: Spells Just Work™, while Martials have to make a roll (or even multiple fucking rolls) to get anything accomplished.
Most of the retards who think this isn't a problem quit playing the game years ago like this thread's sperg and don't even remember how it works. I have no idea why they've felt the collective need to poorly argue their point thread after thread.

>>96181083
>He was getting mocked for being a sped in the very archive post
Lmaooooo

>>96181442
>I'm also just an argumentative bastard?
Shouldn't you be competent at arguing then?

>Sleep
Duration of 1 minute. The guard will wake up, realize he's been conked out, and sound the alarm. It solves a problem right now but creates more problems in 10 rounds.
>Charm person
Makes a creature friendly but does not actually make them obey your commands. A guard told not not let anyone pass a door will still not let you pass a door.
>Jump
Triples your jumping distance but is still tied to your Wizard Strength score, which is probably 10 or 12. Since you specified "high", this means a maximum of 12 feet assuming a running start. That's not very high. Further it does not provide any protection from falling damage; if you miss, you are taking damage.
>Familiar
Familiars have generally very poor stats. Especially for the purposes of stealth missions. A raven, for example, only has a +2 bonus to Stealth. They are by no means automatically winning you anything.
>Silent Image
Does not actually grant a bonus to Stealth. You can still be heard just fine and thus still make Stealth checks to remain unheard as normal.
>Feather Fall
While it automatically succeeds, I defy you to be the 1st level wizard who is explaining to the group that you wasted a spell slot on preparing Feather Fall.
>Alarm
An Anon upthread pointed out all the ways it can be used to fuck with you. Other than that I'll actually grant it to you. 'Tis a bullshit spell.
>Disguise Self
Can be replicated without a spell via a hireling. Also, does not actually grant a bonus on Deception checks made to impersonate someone; you're still relying on your own Deception modifier.
>Detect Magic
Blocked by common dungeon features.
>Longstrider
Does in fact allow you to be faster than an opponent with a speed of 30 feet. Does not prevent tracking. Does not provide a bonus to AC or otherwise make you harder to hit with ranged weapons.

>>96181899
>I'm honest and know it for a fact
It came to you in a dream, no doubt.

>You were
You may need to brush up on your English, Anon.

>>96181977
>Duration of 1 minute. The guard will wake up, realize he's been conked out, and sound the alarm.
Sleep does not alert someone to having been knocked out. Most people would probably assume they fell asleep upon waking, rather than that someone knocked them out. But also you can easily tie up or just kill someone who's been Slept.
>Makes a creature friendly
Which works.
>Triples your jumping distance
Which works.
>Familiars have generally very poor stats
Which doesn't really matter, as Familiars can get away with being seen. And ones that can fly don't even have to worry in the first place.
>Does not actually grant a bonus to Stealth
That's the best part, you don't make a stealth roll when you use it.
>While it automatically succeeds
I accept your concession.
>An Anon upthread pointed out all the ways it can be used to fuck with you
They really didn't, and instead admitted it works.
>Can be replicated without a spell via a hireling
Except it can't, unless you have your hireling chop your shins off.
>you're still relying on your own Deception modifier.
It doesn't, actually. Disguise Self requires a spell save DC, and for the one checking you to suspect you are disguised and proactively make an Investigation roll. Otherwise, it just works.
>Blocked by common dungeon features.
If it's blocked by a common dungeon feature, then nothing could perceive it anyways, and thus your point is utterly moot.
>Does in fact allow you to be faster than an opponent with a speed of 30 feet
Concession accepted.

>>96181941
>You clearly don't understand what that means
It means, "at any given point in time". If I pick a random point in time, a 1st level wizard will be able to cast, at most, two spells. That he might be able to take an hour to gain access to a third is irrelevant becasue that's not THAT point in time, it's a LATER point in time. One hour or more later, to be precise.

This is important because, for example, if you've used Sleep to sneak past a guard, and then Silent Image to hide from a second guard, you probably don't have an hour to prepare a second Sleep spell to deal with a third guard.

>Actually Mage Hand is a pretty good substitute in many situations
The hand that cannot lift more than 10 pounds.
I can think of plenty of uses for it, mind, but a lot of them depend on you already being able to do Rogue things natively and so you're just using the Mage Hand to do them at a distance.

>Considering the Wizard has a 100% chance
Not so much; please see my breakdown of spells over this thread.

>>96181982
I like how you didn't have an actual response so you just defaulted to calling me a liar, classical projection. Except you had to do it indirectly, because you feel like just calling me one would draw attention to your own pathological lying.

>>96182004
>It means, "at any given point in time"
Again, you clearly don't understand what it means. I'll accept that you're unable to conceive of your own choice of wording though, and that you're implicitly unable to argue the point here.

>This is important because, for example, if you've used Sleep to sneak past a guard, and then Silent Image to hide from a second guard, you probably don't have an hour to prepare a second Sleep spell to deal with a third guard.
A Rogue will be caught by the third guard 85% of the time. A Wizard would be caught by them around 60% of the time if he then has to rely on stealth. So your point is, well, moot.

>The hand that cannot lift more than 10 pounds.
Did you think googling what magehand does is gonna argue your point, or something?
>I can think of plenty of uses for it, mind, but a lot of them depend on you already being able to do Rogue things natively
Nah, they don't. I'll take you admitting it's insanely useful though, proving my point even further.

>Not so much
Sorry, you didn't actually read the rules so your claims aren't really worth anything.

I think it's funny that a level 1 wizard, a class meant to grow slowly, is capable of outperforming a level 20 rogue

You know, the Rogue is going to fuck up really badly if he's put to the test against as many obstacles as you expect the Wizard to go through. Sheer math.

>>96181977
>Can be replicated without a spell via a hireling.
No it can't. Disguise Self scales off your spell save DC and can change almost anything about your physical appearance, even moderately altering your size. You'd need to go back two whole editions for some 3.X Epic Level stuff to replicate that.

>>96181998
>Most people would probably assume they fell asleep upon waking
Anon? They live in ridiculous worlds of magic and are perfectly aware that sleep spells exists, and even without that most people would be pretty freakin' worried if one minute they're bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and the next they're picking themselves up off the ground.

>Which works.
At what? If a Guard has been ordered "do not let anyone pass this door", then they're not going to suddenly add in a "except for your best friend who doesn't work here" clause. If it didn't apply to their actual friends, why would it apply to you? Charm Person is expressly not mind control.

>as Familiars can get away with being seen
What kind of world do you run where, when walking around on patrol in a castle, a guard sees a random crow snooping around and thinks, "ah, yes, the common indoor castle crow, scouting out my position, as crows are known to do"?

>That's the best part, you don't make a stealth roll when you use it.
You absolutely make a Stealth role when you try to use it to be stealthy.

>Disguise Self requires a spell save DC
To discern that you are Disguised. This is not the same thing as attempting to claim you are someone whom you are not. Disguise Self'ing yourself as the King means that if someone sees you while walking, they'll think, "hey, the king". But it DOES NOT have an auditory component. So the second you walk up to someone and start talking in a voice that doesn't match your disguise, or Hell, just not making the right noises ("Why isn't that guard's mail shirt clinking when he walks?"), you now have to start making Deception checks.
>If it's blocked by a common dungeon feature
It can still be found by looking for things like secret buttons or hidden levers, which are not magical. And which the Rogue will find first because your first instinct on walking into a room is to start taking 10 minutes to cast a ritual while meanwhile the Rogue is actually looking around and finding shit.

>>96182004
You have got to be genuinely one of the most retarded people I've ever met if you think being able to lift jewels off people at a distance, snatch treasure from across a room, disguise yourself completely, create intentional magic hallucinations among the plethora of other options doesn't boost you over the average rogue.
I'm so sorry your public school education prevented you from learning both probability math and reading. I hope you are able to get in one of dem programs and improve soon.

>>96182007
>I like how you didn't have an actual response
Because you don't have an actual argument. You've made an unfalsifiable claim, that I'm a pathological liar. Anything I could offer up as a counterpoint, you will just dismiss as "no doubt, this is just a further lie".

But the argument's been fun, at least.

>>96182055
>Y-you have n-no argument!
>Anon cried in tears at having been seen for what he is, and after claiming there was an argument being had
Y'know, pathological liars that get called out commonly assume everything they say will be held in doubt and disbelieved without absolute proof.
>But the argument's been fun
You've been pretty clearly mad and upset enough to go searching through archives. Either your life sucks so bad that getting humiliated online is better than nothing, or you're lying, as usual. I think I know which is more likely.

>>96182020
>A Rogue will be caught by the third guard 85% of the time
Based on...? A typical NPC guard has a passive Perception of 12. A typical 1st level Rogue with Expertise has a +7 bonus to Stealth. He beats the guard 80% of the time.

Conversely, a 1st level wizard is unlikely to have a Dexterity of higher than 15 (assuming: Default Array, 15 into Intelligence, 14 into Dexterity, +2 to Int, +1 to Dex), and Stealth is not a wizard skill. Even with advantage the wizard succeeds 79.75% of the time - slightly worse, but still worse, than the Rogue. And the Rogue gets better, faster.

>Nah, they don't
Yeah, they do.

>>96182052
>Anon? They [desperate coping to try and say someone absolutely must react the way he wants to aid his argument]
Sorry, nah. A reasonable person who passes out does not assume they were put knocked out by a sleep dart the moment they wake, despite those being things we have in real life.
Besides that, you ignored the core of the argument there since you had no rebuttal for the fact that Sleep lets you do more than just ignore and walk past the target.

>At what?
Try reading the post.
> If a Guard has been ordered "do not let anyone pass this door", then they're not going to
People are not unthinking robots. You should play less video games, BG3 is not representative of how 5e plays at an actual table.

What kind of world do you run where, when walking around on patrol in a castle, a guard sees a random crow snooping around and thinks
>KILL IT! KILL IT! I GET MY CROSSBOW OUT AND MURDER THE BIRD! THAT BIRD IS A SECRET SPY, I GOTS TA KILL IT!
Because anon, I'd never figure this was reasonable, sane behavior.

>You absolutely make a Stealth role when you try to use it to be stealthy.
But you aren't. You are simply creating an illusion that would obscure another's ability to see and search. Hence as the spell description states, you don't make a stealth "role" (Third worlders are adorable), they don't make a perception role. They have to have a good reason to suspect something is up and actively investigate said illusion to find anything amiss.

>To discern that you are Disguised
Correct, which is how disguises are used.

>It can still be found by looking for things like secret buttons or hidden levers, which are not magical.
Most dungeons don't work this way, and instead secret doors are disguised through magic. You've already conceded that most of them work this way though, so I accept your concession.

>>96182083
>Based on...?
Math. Not your strongsuit, so I'll be kind and give you a longer explanation.
If a rogue has a (Let's be generous and say a 55% success rate) against stealthing past a guard, then he has only a 16% chance to succeed on such a roll three times consecutively.
The Wizard in your example succeeds 80% of the time flat out, because the first two guards would be beaten with automatic successes with no rolls involved.

>Yeah, they don't
FTFY. You can feel free to try and support your argument, although we know how poorly that's gone for you so far lol

>>96182054
>being able to lift jewels off people at a distance
Sleight of Hand isn't a wizard skill. This is relying on the wizard's native Dexterity, which is unlikely to be as good as the Rogue's. The advantage of being able to Sleight of Hand at a distance is more than outweighed by the disadvantage of not being particularly good at it. Also, the mage hand isn't invisible, so you still need to make Stealth checks for it, and few of the wizard's normal magical options for stealth apply.

>disguise yourself completely
Again, no auditory components. Disguise Self is grand...as long as you don't need to speak, and as long as whatever you're disguising yourself as isn't supposed to have a distinctive sound (such as metal armor clinking when guards walk).

>create intentional magic hallucinations among the plethora of other options doesn't boost you over the average rogue.
They legitimately don't as long as the DM is actually competent and not treating them as instant-win buttons. But then perhaps that's my mistake, I don't let the wizard say "I cast sleep on the guard" and then just remove the guard from the rest of the adventure.

>>96182063
>Y'know, pathological liars that get called out commonly assume everything they say will be held in doubt and disbelieved without absolute proof.
And...is that the case? IS everything they say held in doubt and disbelieved without absolute proof?

>I think I know which is more likely.
OR...as I claimed, I've legit found this amusing and fun.

Idle question, have you even considered the possibility that you're wrong?

>>96182133
>Pathological liar is also the martialtard
It makes so much sense now.

>>96182133
>And...is that the case?
>Duh... Id dat duh cays?? do u doubt everyting i sey????
Y'know what, I can believe your teachers thought you were a fucking retard now, that's probably the grain of truth that inspired the rest of your bullshit there.

>OR...as I claimed
Lmfao, yeah man you're having a great time I can tell, that's why you're responding to everyone in the thread with bad faith arguments and wasted 10 minutes to seethe at a 4 word post.

>>96182133
>Sleight of Hand isn't a wizard skill
You can dispel the hand before they even get a look at it and you don't have to be anywhere near them, sorry. It's objectively both more reliable and useful regardless.
>uh what if they recognize your voice
They wont. You're reaching.
>They legitimately dont
Read the book retard. They do.
Get back to me after that literacy night school, Rajeet.

>>96182133
>Sleight of Hand isn't a wizard skill
Yeah that's why they get mage hand.
>This is relying on the wizard's native Dexterity
Source?

>Again, no auditory components. Disguise Self is grand...as long as you don't need to speak
Disguise self doesn't say this. Provide evidence of these mechanics in the spell description.

>They legitimately don't as long as the DM is actually competent (breaking the rules)
Oh so now the GM has to cheat.
>I don't let the wizard say "I cast sleep on the guard" and then just remove the guard from the rest of the adventure.
I mean yeah, you don't because you have no players. If you had a game going on you'd be preparing it instead of losing arguments online.

>>96182133
>such as metal armor clinking when guards walk
I'm sorry it took me a second to understand how profoundly fucking stupid of a statement that is
Putting aside the stupid fucking idea of a low level wizard wearing metal armor, why would I ever want to use Disguise SELF on a guard.
I'm genuinely starting to think the illiteracy wasn't a joke.
Saar please be to redeeming the night classes. Please saar.

>You make yourself, including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person, look different until the spell ends or until you use your action to dismiss it. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between. You can't change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs. Otherwise, the extent of the illusion is up to you.

>Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.
Seems pretty clear cut that a disguise self spell would change the sounds something would make. It might(?) not affect the voice, but that's kind of nothing because
1. Why would some random guard recognize every single person's voice?
2. Why would you need to talk?
3. All this could possibly result in is needing to pass an investigate (int) check against spell save DC, which the guard fails more often than a disguise would work.

In conclusion, no shit it's better than a disguise kit because of course a magic spell is going to be better than mundane bullshit dumbass.

>>96182116
>If a rogue has a (Let's be generous and say a 55% success rate) against stealthing past a guard
That's not generous at all. It's demonstrably much worse than it should be, based on the Rogue's likely Stealth modifier verses the known passive Perception of NPC Guards as per their stats in the Monster Manual. Across three rolls, the odds of a Rogue with a +7 Stealth getting an 11 or lower as their lowest result is about 48.8%.

Granted: I am actually bad at math. However I believe if I head over to Anydice and input

output [lowest 1 of 3d20]+7

Then show the "at most" data, then what I'm looking at is the odds that, if I roll three 20-sided die, what the lowest result would be. Is that correct?

(to have a 55% success rate against a given Guard, a Rogue would need to have a Stealth of just +2, which is unthinkably low)

>because the first two guards would be beaten with automatic successes with no rolls involved.
Again: not really. Because even if you make the first guard Sleep, he wakes up in 1 minute and sounds the alarm, ruining your entire infiltration mission, turning it into combat...where you're down a spell slot but not down an enemy.

The second guard, meanwhile, is probably not going to let a friend pass through a door he's been told to guard because, friend or no, he won't want to get fired. Charm Person is not mind control. Oh, and then he hears the first guard raising the alarm and is even less likely than before.

>>96182187
>he wakes up in 1 minute
Not if you kill him, which is free and instant vs. unconscious enemies.
>the second guard would actually not let that happen because I say so
This is why nobody plays your games (aside from the illiteracy and general retardation).

>>96182187
>That's not generous at all.
It's really exceedingly generous, frankly. Most things that try to spot you will make your odds much worse, but also the method of rolling there is in the rogues favor.
Normally, the GM could instead make you both roll your stealth check (50-50), and then based on the results give the guards their own perception rolls every time they have chance to spot you. In this case, the rogue's success rate plummets even lower, to around 10%, because of the extra roll involved.

>Again: not really
"Again"? You've offered no reasoning for why, and you insisted in your example that the Wizard could take out two guards but wouldn't have a spell for the 3rd. The point is that the Rogue still has a lower failure rate in that example, because the Wizard *can* deal with two guards 100% of the time. We've covered the rest of this before, sorry, but the Wizard wins every single time.

>>96182198
I think what would really cripple his games are inconsistent rulings. He constantly jumps from "Well even though the Wizard CAN get past two guards, he doesn't have a third spell!"
And when that doesn't work in his favor, he instead backpedals and argues actually spells require skill rolls even though there are no rules supporting that claim.

You can tell he's the type of GM who would rail road his players hard as fuck and argue with them whenever they tried to do something he doesn't expect.

>>96182146
>Y'know what, I can believe your teachers thought you were a fucking retard now, that's probably the grain of truth that inspired the rest of your bullshit there.
You haven't answered the question, Anon; are you going to?

>>96182148
>You can dispel the hand before they even get a look at it
Sure but, then you don't get those jewels you were trying to lift. So mission failed.

>They wont
Why not? Not a single thing in Disguise Self describes or suggests an auditory component. Given that other illusion spells are pretty specific about whether or not they contain audio components, visual, or both, I don't see a reason to think that Disguise Self was just an oversight.

>Read the book
See that's the problem, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has. Take Silent Image, for example; you seem to have stopped reading at "creates a 15-foot-cube illusion"; you haven't actually read the spell and noticed the distinct lack of commentary about granting any kind of Stealth bonus or even automatic success. 5e spells are pretty specific about what they can do and are generally assumed to not be able to do things that aren't specified. Fireball expressly ignites flammable objects, for example, while Scorching Ray doesn't mention being able to do so and so it's presumed it doesn't.

If Silent Image were meant to aid in Stealth checks in a direct way (granting advantage, etc.), it would say so. It doesn't, and so it doesn't.

>>96182163
>Putting aside the stupid fucking idea of a low level wizard wearing metal armor
Moron. Try reading the post again.
The wizard is (in theory) using disguise self to look like a guard, in armor. As an example of how a disguised wizard (who probably isn't actually wearing armor) won't sound right when marching down a hall appearing to be an armored guard.

I don't think I'm the one who needs remedial English.

>>96182234
>You haven't answered the question
Yeah I did, just not in the way you wanted me to lmao

>>96182234
>Sure but, then you don't get those jewels you were trying to lift. So mission failed.
So in this hypothetical, the Wizard suffers no consequences for failure and can try again infinitely, while the Rogue gets caught and executed.
The Wizard wins again!

>Why not?
Why would they?

>Not a single thing in Disguise Self describes or suggests an auditory component
Illusion spells all have auditory components. This was directly stated by >>96182176
Why so bad at reading?

>See that's the problem, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has
See the above point. You evidently haven't.

>Moron. Try reading the post again.
Uh oh, you said something retarded and now you wanna retroactively pretend you said something else. Time to get mad and hurl insults to hide that!

>>96182176
>Seems pretty clear cut that a disguise self spell would change the sounds something would make

The spell exclusively talks about visual changes. Illusion spells that have audio components always specify as much. The general description of illusion magic doesn't mean that Disguise Self now has sound; Ghost Sound doesn't expressly mention that it doesn't create a visual illusion but that shouldn't be taken to mean that casting it conjures one, right?

>1. Why would some random guard recognize every single person's voice?
They wouldn't, necessarily; this obviously depends on the context of who you're disguising yourself as. It is, nevertheless, something that needs to be taken into account.

>2. Why would you need to talk?
Any number of reasons. You need to ask someone to open a door, the person you're Disguised as bumps into a friend, a password needs to be spoken to open a hidden chamber, someone asks you a question, etc.

>All this could possibly result in is needing to pass an investigate (int) check
That check is expressly to notice the disguise created by the spell, which is exclusively described in visual terms. It shouldn't apply to audio ones, since nothing in the spell describes audio components.

>no shit it's better than a disguise kit
But it's not better than a disguise kit and actually being good at disguises, i.e., trained in Deception.

>>96182263
>The spell exclusively talks about visual changes. Illusion spells that have audio components
All Illusion spells have audio components, per Illusion in the PHB.

>They wouldn't, necessarily
Ok, then this isn't a problem.

>Any number of reasons
Like?
>You need to ask someone to open a door
You don't need to speak for this, autist.
>the person you're Disguised as
You don't have to disguise as a specific person. You still don't know how the spell works, oof.
>a password needs to be spoken to open a hidden chamber
This isn't even vaguely something you'd need a disguise for.
>someone asks you a question
You also don't need to answer this by talking.
Man, you're kinda bad at coming up with problems. If you weren't just a bad faith arguer, you'd admit it's not guaranteed or even likely, but there could be cases where someone might specifically address you for something.
But admitting that the spell will always work unless the GM fiats something to go against it kinda disproves your entire argument, so you can't do that. Sad and friendless behavior.

>But it's not better than a disguise kit
We've proven it is. Sorry, you've only convinced me and everyone else ITT that we're utterly correct, and that the person we're arguing with is dumb. And apparently might be Indian.

>>96182198
>Not if you kill him, which is free and instant
Free, sure; instant? That depends on your damage roll. And how quiet is it? Not very if you fail to kill the guard...speaking of, per RAW you can't automatically kill him, you just have advantage on your attack roll (though good news: if you miss, and don't deal damage, the guard won't wake, so you can just try again next round) and automatically critical. But that could still mean dealing only a small amount of damage. Say you've got a dagger: 2d4+2 (from 15 Dex) averages to 7 damage. A typical NPC guard has 11 hit points. He's not quite dead. He is now awake and screaming.

>the second guard would actually not let that happen
I didn't even need to bring in the second guard, just follow the rules as written for the first one.

>>96182214
>You've offered no reasoning for why
I literally spend the next two paragraphs in that post outlining why, but okay.

>>96182306
>I literally spend the next two paragraphs in that post outlining why
You don't though? You spent two paragraphs repeating something that was already disproven. Stomping your feet angrily and pretending you weren't wrong doesn't make you right lol.

>>96182229
>And when that doesn't work in his favor
It's actually yet not to.

>>96182316
Considering you've only made yourself look dumber and dumber as time goes on, nah it really hasn't.
I know you'd like to look less mad by pretending you're not pressed as fuck though.

>>96182249
>the Wizard suffers no consequences for failure
That's not necessarily true, since the Mage Hand was spotted in the attempt and thus people are now on the lookout for nearby spellcasters.

He can try again, sure, but Mage Hand has verbal and somatic components to conjure, and the wizard cannot perceive through the hand and so for any task as delicate as trying to steal jewels the wizard will almost certainly need line of sight, and thus be potentially visible to people looking for him. Though I suppose a cleverly placed mirror might allow for ways around that.

>Why would they?
Depends. Who did you Disguise yourself as?

>Illusion spells all have auditory components
Even Silent Image? Why does Major Image specifically note that it creates sound, then? Does this logically mean that all illusion spells have visible components as well - does Ghost Sound create an illusory ghost to make the sound?

>Uh oh, you said something retarded
I mean, go on, you should be able to prove this.

>Disguise Self is grand...as long as you don't need to speak, and as long as whatever you're disguising yourself as isn't supposed to have a distinctive sound (such as metal armor clinking when guards walk).

That's what I wrote. Parse the sentence out, show me where in it I suggested casting Disguise Self on a guard and for the wizard to be wearing real (not illusory) metal armor.

You can do this, I believe in you.

>>96182349
>That's not necessarily true, since the Mage Hand was spotted in the attempt
Nah, it wasn't.

>Verbal and somatic
Nobody can hear or see anything like that in a crowd.
Wizard wins again.

>Depends.
So you can't think of an answer, got it.

>Even
What part of "all illusion spells have auditory components" was too hard to understand for you? Read the rulebook, dumbass. Why does Silent Image specify it doesn't include sound?

>I mean, go on, you should be able to prove this.
Prove that you're retarded? You already admitted to that much lmfao.
>You can do this
Already did. Sorry that you're mad about it. Nah not really heh qq moar

>>96182294
>All Illusion spells have audio components
Even Silent Image?

>Like?
...like the four possibilities I proceeded to suggest? Are you just trying to meet a minimum character quota or something?

>You don't need to speak for this, autist.
You might need to. Again, depends on the context.
>You don't have to disguise as a specific person
No, but you COULD be. Again: depends on the context. If you're, for example, trying to infiltrate the hangout of a gang of five people, then you're probably gonna try and disguise yourself as one of those five, right?
>This isn't even vaguely something you'd need a disguise for.
You do if it's guarded and you want to get past the guards. Before you launch on a tirade, by the way, the assumption here is the guards are stationed INSIDE the chamber, so it's still hidden from the outside. Say, a secret altar to some god, with priests inside.
>You also don't need to answer this by talking.
Depends on the question. And how persistent the questioner is.

>But admitting that the spell will always work unless the GM fiats something to go against it
Competent guards?

>We've proven it is.
Christ you just read half of everything, don't you? A disguise kit AND being actually good at Deception. AND. Both of those things.

>>96182365
>Even
What part of "all illusion spells have auditory components" was too hard to understand for you? Read the rulebook, dumbass.

>...like the four possibilities I proceeded to suggest?
Proved they don't work.
>No, but
No buts, your example was poorer than you are.
>You do if it's guarded
You don't guard hidden passages, my autist in special ed, or they stop being hidden.
>Depends
In other words, your example was a bad one.

>Competent guards?
Competent guards go around asking people to do a quick voice check every 30 seconds, in your world. And also shoot any bird that comes within visual sight of their location. And also automatically assume that anything out of the ordinary, was clearly caused by a wizard, and specifically the guy playing a wizard.

Did like, a Wizard player in one of your games fuck your GF and leave with her, or something? You seem to just be really buttmad that casters are objectively better than martials at the things martials try to do.
>Christ you just read half of everything
Buddy, you didn't even read the rulebook or how the spells work because it breaks your arguments in half lol. We've proven absolutely that Disguise Self is better than a disguise kit. A Level 1 Wizard generally BTFOs even a Level 20 Rogue at the art of disguising.

>>96182312
>You spent two paragraphs repeating something that was already disproven
You didn't "disprove" anything. When I pointed out that Sleep is a temporary solution, the responses were:

>Somehow, a guard who was previously perfectly awake, and who now finds himself picking himself up off the ground after having apparently passed out, won't find this suspicious in the least.
This is ridiculous on the face of it.

>Just kill the guard
Per RAW, you can't just automatically kill the guard, you still have to attack him. Per RAW you have advantage on the attack but must still make an attack, which means you might miss. Per my generosity I'm willing to pretend that it's actually an automatic hit. Per RAW the attack is automatically a critical hit, but per RAW the wizard probably can't deal enough damage in a single hit to kill the guard, who, once awake, will start screaming, thus ending the stealth mission, entering combat, and being down a spell.

If I missed anything, feel free to point it out.

(NB: should a Rogue somehow come across a sleeping guard, then dagger+sneak attack+automatic critical+16 Dex = an average of 15 damage, which IS enough to kill a typical NPC guard. Rogues win again).

>>96182358
>Nobody can hear or see anything like that in a crowd.
They might be able to. That's literally what Perception verses Stealth checks are for.

>>96182358
>What part of "all illusion spells have auditory components" was too hard to understand for you?

The part where that's not what what the thing you posted says. You posted:
>Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.

I mean it's late and I'm tired but I don't even see the word "all" there. I do see a list of possible illusion effects in the second sentence but there is an "or" there, meaning that while any of these could apply to a given illusion spell, not all of them necessarily do.

But by all means, continue being wrong if that pleases you.

>>96182389
>You didn't "disprove" anything.
Oh, the tears of denial are a-flowing.

>Somehow, a guard who was previously perfectly awake, and who now finds himself picking himself up off the ground after having apparently passed out
Seems like you're the one who made this line, not me. Why so disingenuous? Is it maybe that you know your argument already lost and now you can't win unless you reframe it?

Your actual argument, was as such:
>No, you can't tie the guard up while he's passed out.
>No, you can't kill the guard while he's passed out.
>Yes, any guard who fell asleep would immediately intuit that a wizard did this, sound the alarm, and then teleport to the Wizard's location before then yelling "STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM!"

>Per RAW
If we go by RAW, you've lost every argument so far. So I accept this concession of yours. You can only tie up and disable the guard (And then kill him).
*But* now, any other argument you make from now on must quote a section of the rules that fully describes and supports it.

>NB: should a Rogue somehow come across a sleeping guard
The rogue comes across a waking guard. Per RAW, he would be immediately spotted upon trying to enter his field of vision, and would then get the alarm called and be killed.

>>96182382
>You don't guard hidden passages
Christ you're predictably bad at this.
> Before you launch on a tirade, by the way, the assumption here is the guards are stationed INSIDE the chamber, so it's still hidden from the outside. Say, a secret altar to some god, with priests inside.

>>96182412
>Christ you're predictably bad at this
You don't need a disguise if the "guards" are inside a hidden passage way either, my guy. You're predictably unable to read my posts.

>>96182412
Ah yes, the anti-wizard hidden passageway with special guards who can recognize everyone's voices.
At this point why not just say there's a worldwide antimagic field and to pick a different class if you're this buttmad about someone picking Wizard?

>>96182406
>Seems like you're the one who made this line
I was summarizing >>96181998 claiming that a victim of a Sleep spell won't realize that they were knocked out or will just pass it off as a nothingburger, which is insane on the face of it.

>No, you can't tie the guard up while he's passed out.
I don't think anyone brought up that possibility. Did I miss it? I might have missed it. Mea culpa is so.
But no, that's totally doable, but he's gonna wake up in 1 minute and be able to start making noise so it doesn't solve the problem.

>No, you can't kill the guard while he's passed out.
I expressly pointed out that you can, actually - you just can't, per RAW, automatically do so. You have to make attacks and roll damage, and per RAW a victim of Sleep taking any damage automatically wakes them. Unless they die, presumably, but the wizard's damage output is unlikely to accomplish this against bog-standard NPC guards and their 11 hp, meaning that the awakened guard is free to start making noise.

>Yes, any guard who fell asleep would immediately intuit that a wizard did this
Not necessarily that, but they're gonna think that SOMETHING is up, surely?

>If we go by RAW, you've lost every argument so far
Not really, since among other things I'm objectively right about the killing-the-sleeping-guard thing.

>>96182417
>You don't need a disguise if the "guards" are inside a hidden passage way either, my guy
Sure you can, unless once inside you're dropping pretenses and beginning combat.

>>96182433
>who can recognize everyone's voices.
They don't necessarily need to do that. Using the hidden altar example, it's not unreasonable that people who step into the chamber are expected to say something. Ave Asmodei or somesuch. Does the wizard know what it is? Does the Rogue? Probably not in both cases. But who's more likely to be better at faking it or passing it off? Probably the one with Deception as a class skill.

>>96182435
>I was summarizing
No, you were misrepresenting because you couldn't construct a good faith argument.

>which is insane on the face of it.
Ah, yes, understandable. Whenever I nod off or feel tired, I immediately assume someone has roofied the tapwater.

>I don't think anyone brought up that possibility. Did I miss it?
Heh, you really are just a retard who can't read.

>I expressly pointed out that you can, actually
And then changed your mind when it was no longer convenient to your argument. You end up being wrong eitherway though so it doesn't matter.

>Not necessarily
Necessarily according to you.

>Not really
Yeah really, you've avoided RAW and any questions asking for sources or rulings supporting you because they don't.

>>96182445
>Sure you can
Engrish not so good saar please understand!!!

>They don't necessarily
More like they can't and wouldn't, which makes your entire argument just... Useless. Kinda goes for everything you do. You bring up a point, and then it immediately gets shut down so you swap to something contradictory, making you wrong no matter what position you take up. There's a reason why your teachers concluded you were brain damaged, anon.

>>96182389
>per raw you cant.
Skill issue. This would not happen to me. Sorry you both build and GM bad.
The lack of agency you offer and lack of ability to thing beyond a single action is beyond indicative of a terrible GM and player both.
You are so indian it hurts.

>>96182449
> you were misrepresenting
Anon. The Anon I was quoting l tried to claim that a guard, having been regained consciousness after having been knocked out, wouldn’t think anything was strange about the fact that he was now lying on the ground.

You tell me what part of that is misrepresenting the argument Anon was making.

>>96182459
>Anon.
Retard.
>The Anon I was quoting l tried to claim that a guard, having been regained consciousness after having been knocked out
Sleep doesn't "knock out" anyone. It makes you fall asleep.

>wouldn’t think anything was strange about the fact that he was now lying on the ground.
Lying on the ground. Or, maybe just leaning against a wall. Or slumped over at a table. It's like you lack the creative thought processes to see when and where you could knock someone out with Sleep and not leave them on high alert.

>You tell me what part of that is misrepresenting the argument Anon was making.
All of it. You didn't quote it directly because you can't actually formulate arguments. You're reliant on misrepresentation, misconstruing, lying outright, and deflecting when all else fails.

>>96182449
> Whenever I nod off or feel tired
Now this is a bad faith argument. We’re talking about a guy most likely standing guard, suddenly waking up and finding himself on the floor from having passed out. Even if his mind doesn’t jump to “wizard!”, he’s almost certainly going to think somethings wrong with him. People do not typically pass out and collapse while standing unless they’re incredibly, unusually tired, and the guard is going to know full well if he was that tired before the Sleep spell.

> And then changed your mind
Where? If I d changed my mind, it should be a simple matter for you to link it. I’m pretty sure, though, that once killing the guard was brought up, I pointed out that you can ATTEMPT to kill the guard, but the math isn’t on the Wizard’s side of being able to do so in a single blow, and thus the guard will (per Sleep’s rules) wake up and be able to start making noise.

Again, though, if I’ve said otherwise, it should be simple for you to link the post.

>>96182455
> Engrish not so good saar please understand!!!

By all means, parse the sentences and prove me wrong.

> and then it immediately gets shut down
So I’m not great at your native Telugu, I only speak English and Bad English, a little Spanish, if I try hard I can read simple Latin. Does “shut down” mean something different to what it does in English? Because they don’t get “shut down”.

But again, by all means: parse the passage in >>96182402, show me where it says or implies “all illusion spells have auditory components” as per your claim. Emphasis on “all” since that’s the crux of the matter.

Like I said, I believe in you. I believe you can parse an English sentence.

>>96182520
>Now this is a bad faith argument.
Let me guess: You have no explanation for why.
>We’re talking about a guy most likely standing guard, suddenly waking up and finding himself on the floor from having passed out.
No, we aren't. You've added many details that nobody else has agreed to because you realized you had a bad argument and need to shift goalposts. YOU are the bad faith argument, john.

>Where? If I d changed my mind
You can read the thread, I'm not interested in humoring you.

>>96182492
> You didn't quote it directly because you can't actually formulate arguments
I didn’t quote it directly because I didn’t think it was necessary since I was summarizing my previous post where I did.

> You're reliant on misrepresentation, misconstruing, lying outright, and deflecting when all else fails.
Well, same challenge to you then: parse the description of illusion magic here, >>96182402. You tell me what there specifically makes you think that all illusions have auditory components.

‘Cause at least based on how I learned English, the second sentence:

> They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened

And specifically the “OR”, means that those four clauses are meant to be a general summary of what CAN apply to any illusion but do not necessarily all apply to all illusions.

For example, Silent Image obviously does not make people hear phantom noises - else it wouldn’t be silent.

So it seems to me that we cannot, based on this, automatically assume that Disguise Self has auditory components. The spell doesn’t describe any and the general description of illusion magic is fairly plain that not every illusion spell will create phantom sounds.

So am I right? If not - prove it. Parse the sentence.

>>96182529
> You can read the thread,
I’ve read the thread. I have come to the generous conclusion that you’re misremembering things. Perhaps someone has cast Disguise Self on you and caused you to remember things that didn’t happen.

That was sarcasm, by the way. You strike me as someone who’d need help to realize that.

>>96182529
> You've added many details that nobody else has agreed to
Didn’t you at first, though? Or whoever the Anon was who figured that people will generally just write it asleep as a nothingburger. He assumed he’d have an ideal time to cast it where this was viable, but given that Sleep is one of only at most two spells he can cast in any given hour, that’s a pretty generous assumption.

>>96182520
>By all means, parse the sentences
Try writing them in English, shitskin.
>So I’m not great at your native Telugu, I only speak English and Bad English, a little Spanish, if I try hard I can read simple Latin
You can only poorly speak bad English, and you can read and write it at a 3rd grade level if we're being extremely generous.

>show me where it says or implies “all illusion spells have auditory components”
Let's see...

>They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises
Wait a minute, ENHANCE!
>To hear phantom noises
Ahhhhh. There it is!

>>96182556
>I’ve read the thread
Clearly not. Try again.

>>96182562
>Didn’t you at first, though?
Seems like only you did that. I like the attempt at projecting though.
Honestly, you just seem like you don't know how to play the game or a caster.

>>96178706
5E characters are some of the least competent I've seen in any game. Legit full retard, comedy of errors failures. Last time someone put a skill system in front of me that made PCs less competent than 5E does, I yelled at the GM until he took it back and put in one that wasn't shit. 4E characters are exactly as competent as you'd expect them to be.

>>96182455
>thinks "sure you can" is bad english
good morning sir

>>96182573
>They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises
Wait a minute, ENHANCE!
>To hear phantom noises
Ahhhhh. There it is!

That’s not the full sentence Anon. If continues with “or to remember things that never happened”

Now concentrate very hard, Anon. When a sentence goes “a thing can do 1, 2, 3, or 4”, does that mean that the thing ALWAYS does 1,2,3, and 4? No, because if it did it would have said “and” and not “or”, right? Otherwise what do you think “or” means? It’s not a synonym for “and”, Anon.

We can stress-test this by looking at other illusion spells. Does Blur cause people to remember something that wasn’t there? Does Silent Image make sounds? Does Unearthly Chorus create images? Does Invisibility make people see something that isn’t there?

No, no, no, and no, respectively. So aside from a 3rd grade understanding of English letting us know that the description isn’t saying that all illusions contain all those features, actually examining extant illusion spells clearly shows that they don’t.

So. You have, despite arguing all night with me about it, failed.

Better luck next time, I guess? Or,
మంచి అదృష్టం టెక్స్ట్ సమయం
Man̄ci adr̥ṣṭaṁ ṭeksṭ samayaṁ

As they say in your homeland.

>>96181426
That's pretty garbo since there absolutely is some technique and strategy involved in armwrestling. It only comes up if you're in a similar ballpark strength-wise, but that's true for most tests of straight athleticism.

>>96182579
>Clearly not. Try again.
I’ve lapped it 3 times now. Nowhere do I claim that you can’t kill the guard. I only point out that by RAW, a wizard is unlikely to be able to do so in a single blow, which means that he’s giving up any pretense of stealth since the awakened guard will probably call for help or otherwise make noise, which means he’s a poor substitute for the Rogue, which was my original point.

I’m not longer willing to be generous: you’re just straight-up lying.

>>96178822
>5e made a choice of keeping power levels withing a certain range
No it fucking doesn't Character abilities don't scale much, but damage and HP scale to the fucking heavens. You end up with this schizophenic cocktail of characters that can barely break a door at level 1 vs level 15, but the former can die to an angry cat while the latter can decapitate dragons with a sword and survive atmospheric reentry.

>>96183442
>You end up with this schizophenic cocktail of characters that can barely break a door at level 1 vs level 15

I mean, in 3.5, a two-inch thick wooden door has 20 hp and a hardness of 5.

A Strength 17 Fighter with a longsword deals 7 (1d8+3) damage on average. The door's Hardness means only 2 damage actually gets through, so it takes the Fighter 10 rounds (1 minute) to break through the door. Assuming he hits it; you do technically need an attack roll, but the AC is 3 (-5 for Dex 0, -2 for inanimate object), BUT rolling a nat 1 is possible. You can obviate this by taking a full round action to line up the attack, but depending on the circumstances you might not have time to do that.

A 5e wooden door of Medium size has an AC of 15* and probably 18 (4d8) hit points (seems more likely to be resilient than frail, right? So we'll say 18 hp and not 4 (1d8)). A 17 Strength, longsword-wielding 5e Fighter with a +5 attack bonus hits the door about 55% of the time, still dealing 7 damage per attack. I believe this means 3.85 dmg/rnd against the door? So the door is destroyed in 4-5 rounds, or roughly twice as fast as the 3e version of the door.

So...by my math, a 5e character can break a wooden door twice as fast as a 3e character with the same ability score.

-----
*Here the DMG specifically points out that AC represents the difficulty of dealing meaningful damage to an object; the Fighter is hitting it every time, he just isn't damaging it every time

>>96183573
Some addendums:

>The 3.5 fighter should have power attack!
Should he? There are plenty of builds that don't involve a 1st-level fighter having power attack. Further, at 1st level the Fighter can only do -1 atk/+1 dmg, meaning the 10 rounds to deal 20 damage instead becomes 6-7 (6.67, more likely 7 than 6), so he's still slower than the 5e character.

Further, the 5e fighter actually has a similar option called Great Weapon Master, which lets him take a -5 to attack for a +10 to damage. Under these circumstances, the fighter is dealing an average of 5.1 dmg/rnd once to-hit is taken into account. Door's destroyed in 4 rounds.

Granted: only a variant Human could have Great Weapon Master at 1st level. But obviously, he doesn't need it...

>What about 5e's damage threshold
Left up to DM discretion, but the example for damage threshold given in the DMG is "big objects such as castle walls", so it probably shouldn't apply to yon wooden door.

>>96183573
Oh, the same wooden door at level 15 for the 5e character?

The 5e Fighter at level 15 has a +10 bonus to attack, and deals 9 (1d8+5) damage with an ordinary longsword, and has 3 attacks. He hits 80% of the time, so that translates to 21.6 dmg/round. The door is destroyed in one full attack

>>96183573
So I got curious about how it would go in PF2e, as a comparison.

A simple wooden door has 5 hardness, 20 hp, and a Broken Threshold of 10.
A standard +4 (18) Strength fighter with a longsword, deals 1d8+4 damage to the door on a Strike, and 2d8+4 with Vicious Swing. Assuming average damage and using a Strike and then a Vicious Swing, that's 20 damage in one turn, dealing 15 damage to the door and breaking it. It no longer functions as a door but is still on its hinges. Having a very low AC, it may be critted on a mid to high roll, effectively rendering the door utterly smashed to pieces.

For simply forcing the door open, we have to find whether the door is simply stuck or locked. A stuck door can be Forced Open with an Athletics roll beating DC 15. A standard human fighter can do this on a 10 or crit on 20. A locked door, such as a simple door with a poor lock, can be Forced Open with a DC 20 Athletics or two Thievery checks at DC 15. Assuming average rolls of 10 for the fighter (who has invested in Thievery and some Dex) can do so in two turns (Two double actions to pick) or one double action with a crit on 20 (grants two successes).

A rogue at this level would likely crit on 15s to pick the lock.

>>96183573
All I'm getting from this is that 5e doesn't have proper rules for objects, and so its easier to break shit since they dont have to deal with hardness.

>>96183608
Lvl 15 PF2e fighter breaks it in a single strike with his bare fist or just casually rips it from its hinges (auto succeeds and crits).

>>96183442
Don't forget spells do too. Total tonal dissonance.

>>96183425
No it isn't.

>>96185226
>All I'm getting from this is that 5e doesn't have proper rules for objects, and so its easier to break shit since they dont have to deal with hardness.

More or less, though remember that this is part of 5e's overall goal of streamlined play. Want to know an object's HP? Rather than looking over a table that has stuff like "Door (wood), door (wood, reinforced), door (iron), door (adamantium)", etc., the DM just checks the object's size, determines if it's frail or resilient, and then gives it an AC and hit points. The system just doesn't think getting finicky is worth the effort.

It does leave open that, for example, blunt weapons might be better at bashing things apart (give the item bludgeoning vulnerability), or an object might be resistant or immune to some kinds of damage (how do you poison a door?). But that's left up to DM fiat.

KISS principle. You want to keep the game moving, you don't want to be scrolling through tables if it can be avoided.

Crazy how I've never seen this character and didn't read this op post, but I can tell it's a vtuber and the op is a huge faggot. You can just tell you know?

>>96185226
jesus christ this system sounds dreadful

>>96186053
The system is wrong because that detail is crucial to a consistent world.

>>96186093
No it isn't.

>>96186096
Yes it is.

No.

>>96186093
But is it crucial to a good gaming session? Does a session of D&D really improve if the DM has to pause for half a minute to look up the AC, HP, and DR of wooden doors on a table of a bunch of different doors?

>>96186110
Consistency is crucial to a good game, yes.
>Does a session of D&D really improve if the DM has to pause for half a minute to look up the AC, HP, and DR of wooden doors on a table of a bunch of different doors?
Yes, which is why you make it a 3 second thing by putting it on your screen.

>>96186114
No.

>>96186119
Yes. If you're not consistent, you need to be a good game in lieu of it.

No.

>>96186053
>5E is a good game because it's harder on the DM

>>96186114
>Consistency is crucial to a good game
The 5e way still allows for consistency, though, it just simplifies things to item size and resilience, rather than writing up stats for every door of every size and every material.

>Yes, which is why you make it a 3 second thing by putting it on your screen.
The 5e one is on the official DM screen.

>>96186195
DM fiat is not consistency.

>>96186152
In what way is 5e's handling of object damage harder?

>>96186198
It is as long as the DM's consistent about two wooden doors of the same size having the same AC and HP. You're confusing consistency with having reference material.

>>96186198
Yes it is.

>>96180282
Anon why did you reply to me lol
>>96186195
Again it seems less based on math and more how a game feels and how a DM runs things. Bounded accuracy introduces some bullshit (goblin stabbing a dragon) but for the most part people complain about competency because a class is poorly designed or the DM is fucking them over.
A fighter can still be useful, but if the game only ever has one combat session per long rest, he'll do barely anything compared to the wizard or paladin. That's less an issue of the system and more how it is being used: DnD was made for dungeons after all.

Play better games.

>>96186475
>Again it seems less based on math and more how a game feels and how a DM runs things.

It is a combination of both. A game designed so that a specialist will have a 75% chance of success when attempting at level tasks within their specialty while non-specialists with have a 50% chance of success on those same tasks will make players feel competent if played as intended while they will feel incompetent if the DM is only throwing tasks that a specialist has a 50% or less chance of succeeding

>>96186857
No it won't, it'll make the specialist feel massively incompetent.

>>96181370
>you're ignoring size modifiers.
Ignoring the modifiers that literally don't exist in 5e, the system being talked about?

>>96186880
A 75% chance of success on tasks that a specialist should have trouble with is incompetent? There is a reason I made a point about "at level tasks." "At level tasks" are meant to be within a character of a certain level's ability to complete but are not guaranteed to succeed even if they are a specialist. If you want a task that a specialist is pretty much always going to succeed at you want them to do tasks below their level.

>>96181421
There's no roll for things like lifting and pushing heavy objects yeah, contested rolls are RAW for things like pushing living things and escaping/initiating grapples.
>>96181426
I think you're focusing overmuch on the example rather than the concept. Replace it with "trying to push each other 5 feet" if you want.