|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Rogue is the only class with proficiency with Thieves Tools. Any class can use them, but without proficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
+1 Completely agree. It should be exclusive to spell casters. There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks. Actually, it shouldn't, I'd rather not get stuck with one character on the team just because he can open locks. I'm ok with Avyna's suggestion as long as there are other ways to solve the problem, like breaking the door, chest etc that is locked or casting the spell Knock. But, I can understand you Rhobar too. Unlike trying to understand a scroll in a language you're not proficient with, trying to pick a lock is something everyone can do. But unless they're experienced with that kind of activity. they shouldn't expect to succeed very often. Exactly, I feel like rogues should be favorited in that aspect. Even if they make everyone able to pick locks but it should be way easier for a rogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Lady: "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks."
Ranxerox: "Is that even a thing in tabletop 5e?"
Lady: "Yes, but I guess it depends on your DM if they want to be explicit or they homebrew it."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, Lady, that is what you said, and you are incorrect.
You say it's in the player's handbook, well, cite me a source. Show me a quote.
Anyone, literally anyone, regardless of their race or class or anything else about them, can begin the game with proficiency in thieves' tools and a set of them on their person. This is not homebrew, it's right there in the PHB in plain text. Shall I cite the source for you? I'd be happy to, if you want. There is nothing, anywhere in the whole book that ever says or even remotely implies that only rogues can attempt to pick locks - not one thing. Cite me a source if you think there is.
Rogues innately come with proficiency in thieves' tools because it's considered to be a core skill for their class, to some degree. Yes, it's traditional. However, trying to say that that means that they are the only ones who can is incorrect, and acting as though the handbook supports that is disingenuous. I'll say again: as per the handbook, literally anyone can create a character that has proficiency in thieves' tools - anyone. Thieves' tools allow you to add your proficiency bonus to checks you make to attempt to pick locks or disarm traps. These are actions that anyone can attempt. A DM might decide that proficiency is required to make the attempt at all in some circumstances, or that a check cannot be made without a proper tool kit, but that is always a DM call - a not a rule.
Last edited by Niara; 13/11/21 11:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Lady: "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks."
Ranxerox: "Is that even a thing in tabletop 5e?"
Lady: "Yes, but I guess it depends on your DM if they want to be explicit or they homebrew it."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, Lady, that is what you said, and you are incorrect.
You say it's in the player's handbook, well, cite me a source. Show me a quote.
Anyone, literally anyone, regardless of their race or class or anything else about them, can begin the game with proficiency in thieves' tools and a set of them on their person. This is not homebrew, it's right there in the PHB in plain text. Shall I cite the source for you? I'd be happy to, if you want. There is nothing, anywhere in the whole book that ever says or even remotely implies that only rogues can attempt to pick locks - not one thing. Cite me a source if you think there is.
Rogues innately come with proficiency in thieves' tools because it's considered to be a core kill for their class, to some degree. Yes, it's traditional. However, trying to say that that means that they are the only ones who can is incorrect, and acting as though the handbook supports that is disingenuous. I'll say again: as per the handbook, literally anyone can create a character that has proficiency in thieves' tools - anyone. Thieves' tools allow you to add your proficiency bonus to checks you make to attempt to pick locks or disarm traps. These are actions that anyone can attempt. A DM might decide that that proficiency is required to make the attempt at all in some circumstances, or that a check cannot be made without a proper tool kit, but that is always a DM call - a not a rule. Why are you always so confrontational? I already said why and where. What the moderator said is correct and I agree. In my personal opinion, I feel like the rogue should be favored in that aspect. I'm used to other rpgs where they make it exclusive to the rogue as that has been a big trait with rogues. Whether you agree with it or not, that's your opinion and that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
I get firm in my language when people spread direct misinformation to others - it's a personal annoyance of mine, and I apologise for that. If you'll just admit that you initially said that lock picking is restricted by class, told someone else that it was when they asked if it was that way in 5e, and that you are in fact mistaken in that claim and would like to retract it, I'll be quite content.
Last edited by Niara; 13/11/21 11:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
|
Lady: "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks."
Ranxerox: "Is that even a thing in tabletop 5e?"
Lady: "Yes, but I guess it depends on your DM if they want to be explicit or they homebrew it."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, Lady, that is what you said, and you are incorrect.
You say it's in the player's handbook, well, cite me a source. Show me a quote.
Anyone, literally anyone, regardless of their race or class or anything else about them, can begin the game with proficiency in thieves' tools and a set of them on their person. This is not homebrew, it's right there in the PHB in plain text. Shall I cite the source for you? I believe the perception comes from these exerpts: ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/1xnjOkN.jpeg) Afaik, you don't choose your proficiencies in raw in that way. The class you choose dictates some proficiencies, per quote: Your class determines your weapon proficiencies, your saving throw proficiencies, and some of your skill and tool proficiencies. However the background you choose etc can let the player choose additional proficiencies, which I suppose may include an alternative that gives proficiency in Thieves Tools. (It's been a while, so pardon me for errors, correct me if there are.) Purely on the basis of classes, only Rogues have Thieves Tools assigned as a proficiency as baseline. Edit: There's also this on page 125: If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead. So if a player chooses Rogue as their class, and a background that also includes Thieves Tools, the Rogue gets to choose another proficiency instead.
Last edited by The Composer; 13/11/21 11:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I get firm in my language when people spread direct misinformation to others - it's a personal annoyance of mine, and I apologise for that. If you'll just admit that you initially said that lock picking is restricted by class, told someone else that it was when they asked if it was that way in 5e, and that you are in fact mistaken in that claim and would like to retract it, I'll be quite content. First of all your twisting what I said, nowhere in my response to Ranxerox did I say the word "restricted". They asked if that is a thing in 5e and I said "yes" based on what I have read. Only the rogue has a proficiency on Thieves tool and only the rogue has the archetype of thief. It even says in the TPH that Rogues can refine their skills in climbing, disarming traps and opening locks. {If the DM wishes to give everyone that proficiency so be it but if you want a rogue to be unique it would be better if they are the only ones with that proficiency and all the other classes should have a disadvantage (my opinion)}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Lady: "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks."
Ranxerox: "Is that even a thing in tabletop 5e?"
Lady: "Yes, but I guess it depends on your DM if they want to be explicit or they homebrew it."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, Lady, that is what you said, and you are incorrect.
You say it's in the player's handbook, well, cite me a source. Show me a quote.
Anyone, literally anyone, regardless of their race or class or anything else about them, can begin the game with proficiency in thieves' tools and a set of them on their person. This is not homebrew, it's right there in the PHB in plain text. Shall I cite the source for you? I believe the perception comes from these exerpts: Afaik, you don't choose your proficiencies in raw in that way. The class you choose dictates some proficiencies, per quote: Your class determines your weapon proficiencies, your saving throw proficiencies, and some of your skill and tool proficiencies. However the background you choose etc can let the player choose additional proficiencies, which I suppose may include an alternative that gives proficiency in Thieves Tools. (It's been a while, so pardon me for errors, correct me if there are.) Purely on the basis of classes, only Rogues have Thieves Tools assigned as a proficiency as baseline. Edit: There's also this on page 125: If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead. So if a player chooses Rogue as their class, and a background that also includes Thieves Tools, the Rogue gets to choose another proficiency instead. THANK YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
You said "Limited", which is functionally a synonym for restricted. An ability being limited to a subset of people is the same as it being restricted to that subset of people. Regardless: ((Edit: Spoiler tagging the quote block since this is not really pertinent to the original topic of the thread at this stage)) Phb pg 125, "Bckgrounds", sub section "Proficiencies" Each background gives a character proficiency in two skills (described in chapter 7, "Using Ability Scores").
In addition, most backgrounds give a character proficiency with one or more tools (detailed in chapter 5, "Equipment").
If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead. Phb pg 125, "Backgrounds", sub section "Customising a background" You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one. Phb pg 154, "Tools" A tool helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your woodcarver's tools, or a Strength check to make something out of particularly hard wood. Phb pg 154, "Tools", sub section "Thieves' Tools" This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks. Phb pg 143, "Starting Equipment" When you create your character, you receive equipment based on a combination of your class and background. Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces based on your class and spend them on items from the lists in this chapter. See the Starting Wealth by Class table to determine how much gold you have to spend. [Tables and lists include 'Tools', Thieves' Tools cost 25g] The Phb tells you, clearly and openly throughout the course of character creation, that anyone, regardless of their race or class can have proficiency and access to any set of tools or skills that suites their character, including thieves' tools... one class gets them from a class bonus, but that is only one source, and it is in no way, at any point, ever implied to be limited to them in any way. I would very much appreciate it if you would acknowledge that, and that your previous statement - when you said you wanted it limited, and someone asked you if it was a thing in 5e, and you told them that yes, it was, unless the dm homebrewed, was a (perhaps unintentional) mislead.
Last edited by Niara; 14/11/21 12:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
You said "Limited", which is functionally a synonym for restricted. An ability being limited to a subset of people is the same as it being restricted to that subset of people. Niara, again you seem to be acting confrontational, playing semantics and you are twisting what I said. This is what I said if you go back and read it again "There are other things too that I feel should be limited to a specific class or classes such as picking locks" Notice the key word term "I feel". You should know that whenever someone uses the term "I feel", that's an opinion. P.S: Don't try to "educate" me on terms, that's condescending.
Last edited by Lady Avyna; 14/11/21 12:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Yes, and I'm not denying that... and you're welcome to your preference... but then someone asked if that was a thing in 5e, and you said it was, and I corrected you, because it isn't. That's all this is.
Last edited by Niara; 14/11/21 12:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Yes, and I'm not denying that... and you're welcome to your preference... but then someone asked if that was a thing in 5e, and you said it was, and I corrected you, because it isn't. That's all this is. Did you not see what the moderator posted? There is nothing to correct. I feel like you are ignoring my other comments and picking on just one.
Last edited by Lady Avyna; 14/11/21 12:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
So, you're happy to say then, that picking locks is not implied to be limited to just rogues in the 5e Phb? That, indeed, anyone of any race or class can, by the core rules, begin a character with that proficiency and equipment, perfectly legitimately?
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
So, you're happy to say then, that picking locks is not implied to be limited to just rogues in the 5e Phb? That, indeed, anyone of any race or class can, by the core rules, begin a character with that proficiency and equipment, perfectly legitimately? Depends of your character. Like the moderator said, it's only if your characters has the option to pick an extra proficiency but Rogues have it regardless as it's part of their class. It even says that rogues can refine those skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
|
I'm done with both of yours' bickering. Don't care which one of you feel more right or vindicated, you keep butting heads from what I can only pin on an imprinted dislike due to impressions of one another, and I perfectly understand that's a very normal and human thing to do. Try to shake those feelings, please. I really don't want to have my hand forced at giving either of you a temporary break from posting. And do please have a look at this short sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I'm done with both of yours' bickering. Don't care which one of you feel more right or vindicated, you keep butting heads from what I can only pin on an imprinted dislike due to impressions of one another, and I perfectly understand that's a very normal and human thing to do. Try to shake those feelings, please. I really don't want to have my hand forced at giving either of you a temporary break from posting. And do please have a look at this short sentiment. I apologize for feeding the flames with Niara but I do get tired of the way she answers me, maybe I'm wrong in perceiving it that way but I feel like she started being a little confrontational. My initial response was to someone else and I feel like she came in to stir the pot with my response. I will just ignore her from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Edit: redacted, with my apologies... I'm letting this aggravate me and I shouldn't. Sorry, I'll say no more.
Last edited by Niara; 14/11/21 12:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
|
You said "Limited", which is functionally a synonym for restricted. An ability being limited to a subset of people is the same as it being restricted to that subset of people. Regardless: ((Edit: Spoiler tagging the quote block since this is not really pertinent to the original topic of the thread at this stage)) Phb pg 125, "Bckgrounds", sub section "Proficiencies" Each background gives a character proficiency in two skills (described in chapter 7, "Using Ability Scores").
In addition, most backgrounds give a character proficiency with one or more tools (detailed in chapter 5, "Equipment").
If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead. Phb pg 125, "Backgrounds", sub section "Customising a background" You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one. Phb pg 154, "Tools" A tool helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your woodcarver's tools, or a Strength check to make something out of particularly hard wood. Phb pg 154, "Tools", sub section "Thieves' Tools" This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks. Phb pg 143, "Starting Equipment" When you create your character, you receive equipment based on a combination of your class and background. Alternatively, you can start with a number of gold pieces based on your class and spend them on items from the lists in this chapter. See the Starting Wealth by Class table to determine how much gold you have to spend. [Tables and lists include 'Tools', Thieves' Tools cost 25g] The Phb tells you, clearly and openly throughout the course of character creation, that anyone, regardless of their race or class can have proficiency and access to any set of tools or skills that suites their character, including thieves' tools... one class gets them from a class bonus, but that is only one source, and it is in no way, at any point, ever implied to be limited to them in any way. I would very much appreciate it if you would acknowledge that, and that your previous statement - when you said you wanted it limited, and someone asked you if it was a thing in 5e, and you told them that yes, it was, unless the dm homebrewed, was a (perhaps unintentional) mislead. Thank you Niara for posting all this info! I always find your posts extremely helpful and thorough. I have learned so much about DnD rules in this forum (my favorite part of being here), and alot of it comes from you and a few others. Also appreciate your thorough analyses! 😊 Having said all that…I do personally wish rogues had more specialized skills in the game. And in general that all the classes were more distinct from one another. This is purely because I enjoy managing encounters and thinking thru party for rach mission. At the moment, the game is so easy, I just bring who I like. I hope Larian makes the classes more distinct…even if it technically goes against some 5e rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words... I did let this discussion get away from me though...
At any rate, Hopefully they'll give Rogues their Expertise at some point - that goes a long way to creating the 'super-specialist' feeling that they often embody. A rogue with a +17 to Stealth and with Thieves' Tools is definitely far more specialist a those things than even someone else who has dedicated their character to it, but without expertise.
Last edited by Niara; 14/11/21 12:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
As far as thieves' tools and RAW are concerned, I want to point out a couple of things which, I believe, have not been mentioned yet. PROFICIENCIES
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields Weapons: Simple weapons
Tools: Thieves' tools, tinker's tools, one type of artisan's tools of your choice
Saving Throws: Constitution, Intelligence
Skills: Choose two from Arcana, History, Investigation, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Sleight of Hand This is clearly RAW, but admittedly this class is not in the Players' Handbook (PHB), so let me bring up information from the PHB. There is a paragraph called "Customizing a background" on p125, which states that player groups are free to create any Background they want, giving their custom Background a total of two tool proficiencies or languages. But that sounds like it may be considered homebrew territory for some purists. The following is not. Skill Proficiencies: Deception, Stealth
Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set, thieves' tools
Equipment: A crowbar, a set of dark common clothes including a hood, and a pouch containing 15 gp Skill Proficiencies: Sleight of Hand, Stealth
Tool Proficiencies: Disguise kit, thieves' tools
Equipment: A small knife, a map of the city you grew up in, a pet mouse, a token to remember your parents by, a set of common clothes, and a pouch containing 10 gp So, according to the rules, being good (in particular, proficient) at picking locks and disarming traps is not exclusive the the Rogues class. Now, do I personally feel happy with this ? Yes, for three reasons. - I feels right to me. Picking lock or disarming traps isn't exactly difficult. There is nothing super advanced about it. Playing a particular instrument without any proficiency in any instrument (no musical training at all) sounds near impossible to me. But studying a mechanism until figuring out how it works sounds like something most of us have done in real life. Of course, one might say, 5E isn't mean to be a real-life simulator (even for life in a fantasy world). Which brings me to the second point.
- In a video game, that is a lot more likely to feature many locks and traps than a tabletop campaign (some of which may forego these altogether), being able to use thieves' tool well will be a fairly important skill to have in the party. I don't want to feel forced to include a Rogue.
In BG1-2, I always made sure I had a half Thief in my party (multi-class */Thief or dualed-out-of Thief). Because the older editions required a Thief for traps and locks to even attempt to remove them, and BG1-2 contained a lot of traps and locks. (Yes, I know, I could do without. But sending summons or tanks on traps, and using the Knock spell on locks leads to a very tedious gameplay.)
- I'm very happy for 5E's Rogues to be characterised by Sneak Attack and Cunning Action. I don't feel they need more.
Coming back to the original topic of the thread, I hope that Larian will restrict the possibility of using certain scrolls to certain classes. Again, for similar reasons as above. - I feels right to me (even though, to start with, I find the concept of casting from one-use-only scrolls very stupid, but that's whole other topic). Reading a scroll requires reading skills. Not every one character can do that. And we're talking about reading complicated shit (otherwise Wizards wouldn't spend years mastering magic).
- Not restricting scrolls usage by classes decreases the identity of classes. 5E classes are already not as strongly-differentiated as they may have been in the past (and I like it fine that way). If Larian wants to make classes even less differentiated, I'm going to start wondering why they bother keeping classes at all (and I know they're on the record saying that classes are restrictive).
So, I hope they'll get round to implementing class-restricted usage of spell scrolls.
|
|
|
|
|
