Theives Tools

[Great Dragon]

am I the only DM that find the Thieves' Tools to be equally usable by anyone with Proficiency annoying?
Personally, I feel that the Rogue - who is trained to deal with Traps and Locks - should be better than a Wizard (or other Class) with either the Criminal or Urchin Backgrounds. I tend to use the old 3x rules: only Rogues can deal with things over a DC 20. I would have to either playtest or get feedback about if this should be lowered to 15 DC - since 5e does not really have a lot of Traps/Locks with DC 20 or above....


If a Rogue really wants to be that good with Thieves' Tools he would choose it with his Expertise class ability. In 5E it was by on purpose design that you don't need any one specific class to do a Thing. They spread healing around by spell and other means so you don't need a Cleric. Anyone can pick a lock or deal with traps so you don't need a Rogue. Tool use is a skill, not a class feature.


I forgot to mention Expertise.
Not every Rogue puts one of thier Expertise in Thieves' Tools, because they are playing something else. Like Spy, Scout, or Social Expert.

This means that there is very little difference between the Rogue and the Criminal/Urchin PCs.
The only thing I can think of is that Rogue gets Proficiency in Investigate so at to Detect Traps.

Other then that one detail - Why play a Rogue (other then for Sneak Attack and RP) when another PC can bypass the Traps and Locks just as good as you, especially if you did not take Investigate as a Skill for your Rogue PC?

That is what annoyed. Especially as a Player, but still a little as a DM.

Sure those Backgrounds allow you to bypass Simple Traps and Locks, but the Rogue knows how to get past harder ones - and even more so with Expertise, but even without it - was my Idea.

Sure, Healing is spread around, but only the Life Cleric really masters it.
But, Bards can match other Domain Clerics, but both outshine Paladins.
Even with the Paladin casting Cure Wounds in a 5th level Slot {5d8 = 25 hp average, 40 hp maximum) and Lay on Hands {level times five}. 20th level = 80 hp maximum a day.

Which is why most Players will check to see what class is covered in the group, so that there is less overlapping.


Exactly, why play a rogue. That's the point, to be able to handle locks and traps if that's what you want and still do other things like cast spells or smite your enemies. It's no longer an exclusive rogue thing and not supposed to be. Rogues can do lots of things depending on where they choose to utilize expertise and subclasses. Some may want to be a con-man focusing on charisma skills. Others want to be a deadly assassin, and it's all about doing as much damage as possible while not getting caught or at least retaliated against. For the rogue player who wants to deal with locks and traps he can be very good at it, better than others because of his expertise and chosen subclass can improve it.

Maybe I'm just an old 3x Grognard?
I still believe that the Basic Rogue should still be more skilled at Traps and Locks then some Random Joe with the right Background.

I would consider allowing the PC that made a Rogue that had Criminal/Urchin to pick either another Skill or Language.

[JNAProductions]

First off, your Paladin math is wrong. 20*5=100, and because it's Lay On Hands, it's absolutely perfect healing-no excess healing, healed to full as needed.

Second of all, only Rogues can get Expertise in Thieve's Tools. Most Rogues don't, because proficiency is usually enough, but if you really want to be the best at it, be a Rogue. And look at your examples-you say Life Clerics are the ebst at healing, and that's true (well, Healing Spirit...) but they don't have a monopoly on it. Other Clerics can heal, Paladins can, Bards can, Druids can, Rangers can... Hell, Warlocks and Sorcerers can even get in on the healing fun! So why should Rogues be the only ones who can handle locks or traps?

[Great Dragon]

First off, your Paladin math is wrong. 20*5=100, and because it's Lay On Hands, it's absolutely perfect healing-no excess healing, healed to full as needed.
Opps, sorry about that.
140 hp maximum for the Paladin


Second of all, only Rogues can get Expertise in Thieve's Tools. Most Rogues don't, because proficiency is usually enough, but if you really want to be the best at it, be a Rogue. And look at your examples-you say Life Clerics are the ebst at healing, and that's true (well, Healing Spirit...) but they don't have a monopoly on it. Other Clerics can heal, Paladins can, Bards can, Druids can, Rangers can... Hell, Warlocks and Sorcerers can even get in on the healing fun! So why should Rogues be the only ones who can handle locks or traps?

I wasn't trying to make the Basic Rogue have a monopoly, just be better at it then a Background feature.
Even the Optimized Expertised Rogue can get a Roll of One, and be outdone by that Joe with a Natural 20.


I could even accept those Backgrounds that "gain use of Thieves Tools" (Dexterity Check) but not getting Proficiency.

[JackPhoenix]

Is there any point to this thread?

Anyone (proficient with thieves' tools, that is) can open any lock given time, but like Life cleric is the best at healing, rogue (perhaps with expertise) can reliably unlock pretty much anything as an action. You need to open very hard lock (DC 25) to escape from imminent danger? Well, a high-level Dex fighter with +11 will do it eventually (35% chance on every attempt, assuming retries are allowed and the GM doesn't decide failure means you can't figure how to open it at all), but a rogue with Reliable Talent and +17 will just do it, without any need to touch the die. If there are no consequences for failure, it doesn't matter if you open it in 6 seconds or half a hour, it would be opened eventually... even without lockpicking, barbarians with greataxes exist.


I wasn't trying to make the Basic Rogue have a monopoly, just be better at it then a Background feature.
Even the Optimized Expertised Rogue can get a Roll of One, and be outdone by that Joe with a Natural 20.

There's no such thing as rolling 1 for level 11+ rogues making ability checks they are proficient with.

[JNAProductions]

Opps, sorry about that.

I wasn't trying to make the Rogue have a monopoly, just be better at it then a Background feature.
Even the Optimized Expertised Rogue can get a Roll of One, and be outdone by that Joe with a Natural 20.

No...?

Reliable Talent. Any Rogue of 11th level or higher never rolls less than a 10 on ability checks they apply their proficiency to, meaning that they have a minimum roll of 10+Dex+Proficiency mod, or 21 at level 17 most of the time.

And the thing is, that's part of the system. It's impossible (without rolling for stats) to fall off the d20. Even the best of the best (20 in a stat, Expertise) max at +17, meaning they can fail a DC 19 check. That same check can be achieved by someone with poor aptitude and no training (8 in a stat, no proficiency). The odds of it happening are, of course, pretty damn slim (1/400, assuming no advantage or disadvantage) but it's there.

If you want a trained professional to be unable to fail where a novice can succeed, go to 3rd edition.
If you want there to be checks that everyone can attempt, and it's not just a binary pass/fail for the expert, then stick with 5th.
If you want something even vaguely close to accurately resembling reality, don't play D&D. :P

[Mellack]

I don't see why a rogue class should be the only ones who can pick locks. I like that it is a background that can fit any class. Jill was raised on the streets and used her magical talents to fool people as a sorcerer, but needed her skills with to deal with physical things like locks. Or Bob who worked muscle for the gang, but knew that sometimes quiet entry was needed to get into position. Or even Pip, who devoted his life religiously to the god of thieves, and wanted to learn the skills to better understand his deity. I think it is better to spread the skills around.

[Mellack]

I wasn't trying to make the Basic Rogue have a monopoly, just be better at it then a Background feature.
Even the Optimized Expertised Rogue can get a Roll of One, and be outdone by that Joe with a Natural 20.



Rogues get reliable talent at 11th level, so they would always get at least a 10 + prof + stat.

Do you also restrict athletics to barbarians? After all, even a 20 str raging barbarian can roll a one failing to break those chains and Joe commoner can roll a natural 20 and break them.

[Great Dragon]

This was a Thought Experiment - and to see what others thought about this.

Even though 5e has been out for several years, I'm only now really getting into it -- and am still learning how to DM it.

Thank you, everyone for posting!

And yes, I still play 3x D&D - where only the Rogue can Find and Disable Traps - but no system is perfect.

[stoutstien]

I like the fluidity of class/ rolls.
I still think rogues win with reliable talent And to a lesser extent stroke of luck.

[Frandopolis]

I would consider allowing the PC that made a Rogue that had Criminal/Urchin to pick either another Skill or Language.

Very close if not totally RAW already. You're allowed to change out skills/languages (and tools?) from backgrounds if you already have the one they give.

[jh12]

Very close if not totally RAW already. You're allowed to change out skills/languages (and tools?) from backgrounds if you already have the one they give.

If you aren't making a custom background, RAW lets you substitute a different proficiency of the same kind if you already get that proficiency from your race or class, so a rogue with a criminal/urchin background can pick up another tool proficiency. A custom background lets you pick a total of two languages and tool proficiencies in any combination, along with any two skills.

[Rixitichil]

I also note that a Rogue of the Thief or Arcane Trickster variety can pick locks or disable traps as a bonus action.
Not relevant all the time, but (if your party is already in combat,) a good rogue is twice as fast at disabling any obstacles that might clutter the battlefield.

[Keravath]

I actually like this aspect of 5e. Anyone with a suitable background can be proficient with thieves tools which lets them open locks/disarm traps that require thieves tools.

Why do I like it? This allows character backgrounds and the work they do to have more impact on the characters. The fighter who works for a criminal organization. The monk urban bounty hunter who learns how to open locks and disarm traps to catch their targets. Honestly, does it really make any sense that rogues could be the ONLY characters who can master thieves tools? Anyone can be a brewer, a blacksmith, a leatherworker ... all of these trades require as much work or more to master than learning how to pick locks and disarm traps.

Finally, the rogue can STILL be the best at this role (better than any other class or background combination) if you want to build the character that way. The rogue can have expertise in investigation, perception, arcana and thieves tools which makes them better than any other character at picking locks and finding and disabling both mundane and magical traps.

So, although I started with 1e, I find this aspect of 5e to work better than previous editions which limited dealing with these kinds of things to the Thief (rogue) class and only the Thief (rogue) class.

[redwizard007]

And yes, I still play 3x D&D - where only the Rogue can Find and Disable Traps - but no system is perfect.

I see you forgot about Clerics. Don't feel bad. Everyone does it.

[JackPhoenix]

I see you forgot about Clerics. Don't feel bad. Everyone does it.

And Artificer. And Scout. And Ninja. And some other classes I can't remember. And there propably were some alternate class features that gave it. And likely a feat... it's 3.5 we're talking about, after all.

[Great Dragon]

I see you forgot about Clerics. Don't feel bad. Everyone does it.

The Find Traps spell allowed the Cleric to Find the traps, but not Disarm them - if I recall.


And Artificer. And Scout. And Ninja. And some other classes I can't remember. And there propably were some alternate class features that gave it. And likely a feat... it's 3.5 we're talking about, after all.

The Scout and the Ninja are (mostly) Rogues.

Artificer is the only class i'm not really familiar with (3x or 5e).

[Joe the Rat]

And yes, I still play 3x D&D - where only the Rogue can Find and Disable Traps - but no system is perfect.

Or anyone with Search and Disable Device proficiency else who can beat the DCs up to 20, provided they are not magical traps.

so Rogues are the only ones to do well at higher levels of difficulty.

[Great Dragon]

Or anyone with Search and Disable Device proficiency else who can beat the DCs up to 20, provided they are not magical traps.

so Rogues are the only ones to do well at higher levels of difficulty.

This was part of one of my above posts. :smallbiggrin:

[MrStabby]

With the possible exception of Barbarians, who disarm traps with their face, rogues are the best at this and can chose to be better still.

What you can't do is chose to be more of an expert and be more of an expert at stealth and also be more of an expert at history or perception or whatever. Aligned stats, reliable talent, bonus actions to do this, expertise and proficiency... what more do you want?

[Shuruke]

Opps, sorry about that.
140 hp maximum for the Paladin



I wasn't trying to make the Basic Rogue have a monopoly, just be better at it then a Background feature.
Even the Optimized Expertised Rogue can get a Roll of One, and be outdone by that Joe with a Natural 20.


I could even accept those Backgrounds that "gain use of Thieves Tools" (Dexterity Check) but not getting Proficiency.

Your forgetting rogue natural talent feature that makes it so they can never roll less than 10 on any skill check

Aire its like level 11 or 12 but that still makes them the most consistent trap disabler in the game
Along with the most consistent skill monkey being able to have better knowledge checks than any other class.

[Great Dragon]

Remember that for a lot of Games - especially mine for many years
- is that very few reach 11th+ Level.
Unless they Start at least Level 10.

It was for these Lower Level Rogues that I was aiming for.

Subclass choice is always on the Player.

Expertise in the correct skill is also nice, but not everyone wants to play the Dungeon Delver
- though there are those that do, and place Expertise into Investigate and Thieves' Tools, and even take the Dungeon Delver Feat: who only has One Job - Find/Disable Traps and Bypass Locks.
With maybe Expertise in Perception (and maybe Insite) and the Alert Feat so as to never be surprised.

This is always an Option for the Player.
But most of the time the other Players will only see a Munchkin Power Gamer.
Unless everyone at the table is also playing Optimized PCs. YMmV.

RolePlay is seperate, since it does not really rely on Game Stats - except to maybe tell the Player their Character's Limits.

So, yes, Reliable Talent can give the Basic Rogue the edge - when they get it.
So Joe at 20th Level with +6 Proficiency and a 20 Dex has (1d20) +11 to Disable Traps, etc.
Now, that 20th Level Rogue with a 20 dex could (with the Thief Subclass) do this with (1d20) +21 (+27 with Expertise) as a Bonus Action - thanks for reminding me of this.

So, maybe Joe can't get past very many Magical Locks and Traps at these Levels?

I don't know, maybe I just need to adjust to the new System more, and accept that there is always a chance for the Rogue to be outdone by Joe, because of a Lucky Roll. Especially at Lower Levels.

[MThurston]

Maybe I'm just an old 3x Grognard?
I still believe that the Basic Rogue should still be more skilled at Traps and Locks then some Random Joe with the right Background.

I would consider allowing the PC that made a Rogue that had Criminal/Urchin to pick either another Skill or Language.

Tie thieves tools to the sleight of hand skill.

[Great Dragon]

Tie thieves tools to the sleight of hand skill.

Without looking, I know that there is a way to do this - I forget which
- if it a Rogue Class or Subclass that does this.

Something about being able to use Sleight of Hand as part of a (Bonus?) action to use Thieves Tools.....
Not sure where this is....

So, replace Expertise in Insite with Sleight of Hand for the Ultimate Rogue.
Lightfoot Halfling for that Never Roll a One Luck, and the ability to Hide behind Taller People.

[Max_Killjoy]

Without looking, I know that there is a way to do this - I forget which
- if it a Rogue Class or Subclass that does this.
Something about being able to use Sleight of Hand as part of a (Bonus?) action to use Thieves Tools.....

IIRC, Level 3 Thief, Fast Hands, can use bonus action for Thieves Tools OR Sleight of Hand OR a couple of other things maybe.


Personally I have no problem with any character learning to use a Skill or Tools of any sort. Far more interested in mechanical fidelity to the "fiction layer" character, encouraging diverse builds, and enabling player enjoyment, than I am in the notion of "niche protection" or "archetypes".

[Great Dragon]

IIRC, Level 3 Thief, Fast Hands, can use bonus action for Thieves Tools OR Sleight of Hand OR a couple of other things maybe.
Thanks! Looked it up:
Rogue - Thief Subclass "FAST HANDS - Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves' tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, or take the Use an Object action."


Personally I have no problem with any character learning to use a Skill or Tools of any sort. Far more interested in mechanical fidelity to the "fiction layer" character, encouraging diverse builds, and enabling player enjoyment, than I am in the notion of "niche protection" or "archetypes".

Something I am working on, but some Old Habits do die hard.
To me - Someone that is an Expert in a given Skill/Tool should be at least a little better at it then Random Joe.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thanks!



Something I am working on, but some Old Habits do die hard.
To me - Someone that is an Expert in a given Skill/Tool should be at least a little better at it then Random Joe.

But unless you have expertise, you're not an expert. Not all rogues are pick-lock experts by fiction, nor are only rogues such experts.

[Great Dragon]

But unless you have expertise, you're not an expert. Not all rogues are pick-lock experts by fiction, nor are only rogues such experts.

By that Logic, the Bard (any College) would be just as skilled at these Rogue things with Expertise.
Plus Magic!

Which means that if this Bard PC is already in the Party
- the non-Expert Rogue is nearly useless except as a Sneak Attacker.

*Sigh*

[Max_Killjoy]

Something I am working on, but some Old Habits do die hard.
To me - Someone that is an Expert in a given Skill/Tool should be at least a little better at it then Random Joe.


Rogues do get the Tool Proficiency for free as part of their starting list.

And they get Expertise if they want to be experts with those Tools -- a bonus most Classes don't get.

And DEX is already their "main stat", so they lean toward being better that way too.

And if they choose Thief, they can use their Thieves Tools as a Bonus Action


Which to me sounds like a Thief with good DEX and Expertise and Fast Hands can walk up to a door with a simple lock, pop it in one smooth motion, and slip inside, in a single Round?


So all in all, I think they do get to be experts with picking locks and disarming traps if the player chooses to lean that way.

[Max_Killjoy]

But unless you have expertise, you're not an expert. Not all rogues are pick-lock experts by fiction, nor are only rogues such experts.

Isn't that then also an assertion that a Character with Class(es) without the Expertise feature can never be an expert at anything?

[Great Dragon]

Which to me sounds like a Thief with good DEX and Expertise and Fast Hands can walk up to a door with a simple lock, pop it in one smooth motion, and slip inside, in a single Round?

So all in all, I think they do get to be experts with picking locks and disarming traps if the player chooses to lean that way.

Aha! So while that Bard can pick that Lock, he can't do is nearly as fast as the Thief.

But what about the Player that wants to play an Inquisitive Rogue?
Expertise in Insite and Investigation, and then Perception and Persuasion.

That Urchin Bard could still be just as good [or better] at picking locks (and traps) as she is!

[JackPhoenix]

By that Logic, the Bard (any College) would be just as skilled at these Rogue things with Expertise.
Plus Magic!

Which means that if this Bard PC is already in the Party
- the non-Expert Rogue is nearly useless except as a Sneak Attacker.

*Sigh*

By the same logic, if there's a Life cleric in the party, paladin or druid is nearly useless, except all those things they do that clerics don't.
And a bard is nearly useless in a party that already has arcane caster, healer and a rogue.
And sorcerer or warlock is nearly useless in a party that already has a wizard.

Right?

Just because the party has an expert doesn't mean the second expert is useless... it means both experts can focus on different things.

[Great Dragon]

Isn't that then also an assertion that a Character with Class(es) without the Expertise feature can never be an expert at anything?

This is part of what I was getting at. Say, only Level One PCs.
The Rogue will never match the Fighter in melee combat.
The Fighter can't get the resistance of the Barbarian.
The Bard will never compare to the Sorcerer.
Etc.

Sure Expertise gives more focus. Which is the point of that Ability.


Just because the party has an expert doesn't mean the second expert is useless... it means both experts can focus on different things.
If you have a large enough Party, sure. I rarely see over 5 Players at any given table.
So, yes - if a Party already has a Bear Barbarian, a Life Cleric, a Dragon Sorcerer,
and a Thief Rogue - the Bard would not really be needed.
The (any Subclass) Paladin can jump in, since he can not only Fight and Heal, but also can Smite for extra damage that the Barbarian can't do.
And, the Moon Druid would be most welcome, since shapechanging allows for Combat and still has spells.

The Bard would be a Roleplaying Choice on the Player's part.

[Morty]

Rogues being the "locks and traps" class is pretty dumb to begin with and should have been phased out a few editions ago. What remains of it in 5E is minor enough not to be a bother, so I don't see any point in making it a more major part.

[Great Dragon]

Rogues being the "locks and traps" class is pretty dumb to begin with and should have been phased out a few editions ago. What remains of it in 5E is minor enough not to be a bother, so I don't see any point in making it a more major part.

Well, what works for you.

To me - that's what the Rogue has always been, not just in D&D but in a lot of Novels as well.
Sure, not every Rogue is an Expert at those things, but they are still knowledgeable about them.
Which, to me means that they should have at least a small edge over Joe, because of Training
and Not something just picked up on the Streets.

[stoutstien]

I think a lot of this come down to if you allow natural fail/ success on ablity checks.
I don't care how many times the wizard with an 8 in strength and no Athletics rolls 20s, they cant break chains with a burst DC of 20.
Or looking at theives tools we have a rogue and monk both with Prof in tools and maxed Dex at lv 3 just to make it a clean comparison.
Monk min max rolls 8/27
Rogue min max rolls 10/29
Right off the bat the rogue who takes expertise in thieves tools has a 100% chance of beating a DC 10. The monk only needs to roll a 3+ but there is still a chance of failure.
Lv 6
Monk 9/28
Rogue 11/31
Now not only can they pass a lower DC automatically but they have a Chance to beat a DC 30. The monk doesn't have a Chance at all.
Now if the monk picks up prodigy they can pace to rogue other than the class features mentioned in posts above.

[Great Dragon]

I think a lot of this come down to if you allow natural fail/ success on ablity checks.
I don't care how many times the wizard with an 8 in strength and no Athletics rolls 20s, they cant break chains with a burst DC of 20.
I agree.


Or looking at theives tools we have a rogue and monk both with Prof in tools and maxed Dex at lv 3 just to make it a clean comparison.
Monk min max rolls 8/27
Rogue min max rolls 10/29
Right off the bat the rogue who takes expertise in thieves tools has a 100% chance of beating a DC 10. The monk only needs to roll a 3+ but there is still a chance of failure.
Lv 6
Monk 9/28
Rogue 11/31
Now not only can they pass a lower DC automatically but they have a Chance to beat a DC 30. The monk doesn't have a Chance at all.
Now if the monk picks up prodigy they can pace to rogue other than the class features mentioned in posts above.

Yes, but without that Expertise, they are exactly the same chance - which is my point.
Now if the Monk picks up prodigy they can pace outpace the above Rogue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, what works for you.

To me - that's what the Rogue has always been, not just in D&D but in a lot of Novels as well.
Sure, not every Rogue is an Expert at those things, but they are still knowledgeable about them.
Which, to me means that they should have at least a small edge over Joe, because of Training
and Not something just picked up on the Streets.

They do have an edge. They're a DEX-focused class and get automatic proficiency.

And they're the only class that can get expertise in Thieves' Tools. Bards can't--their expertise feature limits them to skills (not tools) with which they are proficient. I'm AFB, but I'm pretty sure the racial feat from Xanathar's is similarly limited.

I also reject the "Rogues == locks and trap specialists" idea. There are many many classic rogue archetypes and backstories that don't point that direction. The urban thug. The smooth-talking con-man. The highway robber. The piratical scoundrel. The 3-musketeers swashbuckler.

And D&D (5e at least) has moved far away from niche protection. You don't need a cleric to heal (although it helps); there are no longer the long list of debilitating effects that can only be removed by clerics. You don't need a heavy armor type as a tank (although it can help). You don't need a wizard. So why in the world should you need a rogue (and only a rogue) to handle basic traps and locks? Note--most traps don't need thieves tool proficiency to trip. Most can be disabled or bypassed simply by smart play, as outlined in the DMG. Putting a shield up to block the dart trap. Putting a wedge under the pressure plate so it can't trigger. Tripping it, then running across as it resets. Etc.

More generically (and to @Max_Killjoy's question)--D&D adventurers are not experts at anything but adventuring, in the main. They're the epitome of generalists. They all started out (in concept) as 1st level characters. Apprentices. They then leveled up and gained strength by adventuring. In doing so, they each specialized in a particular form of adventuring. A wizard adventurer is going to be really good at casting spells, even under amazing circumstances. And at figuring out which of those runes to press so it doesn't go KA-BOOM!. Discussing hermeneutics and ontologies of magic in abstruse texts? Not so much. Adventurers are graduates of the Hard Knocks College of Applied Adventuring. They're not academics, they're not "experts" unless they have class features that say they are.

[Great Dragon]

They do have an edge. They're a DEX-focused class and get automatic proficiency.

And they're the only class that can get expertise in Thieves' Tools.
Bards can't--their expertise feature limits them to skills (not tools) with which they are proficient.
I was not aware of this - thank you!


I'm AFB, but I'm pretty sure the racial feat from Xanathar's is similarly limited.

I also reject the "Rogues == locks and trap specialists" idea. There are many many classic rogue archetypes and backstories that don't point that direction. The urban thug. The smooth-talking con-man. The highway robber. The piratical scoundrel. The 3-musketeers swashbuckler.

And D&D (5e at least) has moved far away from niche protection. You don't need a cleric to heal (although it helps); there are no longer the long list of debilitating effects that can only be removed by clerics. You don't need a heavy armor type as a tank (although it can help). You don't need a wizard. So why in the world should you need a rogue (and only a rogue) to handle basic traps and locks? Note--most traps don't need thieves tool proficiency to trip. Most can be disabled or bypassed simply by smart play, as outlined in the DMG. Putting a shield up to block the dart trap. Putting a wedge under the pressure plate so it can't trigger. Tripping it, then running across as it resets. Etc.
Yes, but locating (Investigate) those Traps so as to know where they are, and what they do - so as to know how to bypass them really helps!

Well, I suppose that I was looking for more than just Dex (which anyone can max) and Proficiency (which is the same for all classes of equal Level) without having to use the Expertise crutch to show that your trained and skilled at something.
I mean even the Wizard does not need to rely on School specialization to be potent. Choosing to specialize in a School just gives special abilities based on said school, and the fact that it's easier to learn spells of that School.


More generically (and to @Max_Killjoy's question)--D&D adventurers are not experts at anything but adventuring, in the main. They're the epitome of generalists. They all started out (in concept) as 1st level characters. Apprentices. They then leveled up and gained strength by adventuring. In doing so, they each specialized in a particular form of adventuring. A wizard adventurer is going to be really good at casting spells, even under amazing circumstances. And at figuring out which of those runes to press so it doesn't go KA-BOOM!. Discussing hermeneutics and ontologies of magic in abstruse texts? Not so much. Adventurers are graduates of the Hard Knocks College of Applied Adventuring. They're not academics, they're not "experts" unless they have class features that say they are.

I wonder what the 3x Expert NPC Class would look like in 5e?
Since it is not an Adventuring Class, it would most likely not have Subclasses.

[Rixitichil]

Between their third and Ninth level ability, an Inquisitive Rogue gains speed and advantage for detecting traps, secret doors and other hidden objects. So if you include searching for traps in your door opening routine, they do it at the same speed as a Thief or Arcane Trickster.
Most Rogue Archetypes include something that makes them better at subterfuge, (Mastermind and Assassin both get useful tricks for disguises.) They may not all be good for dealing with traps, (although half are,) but I think that is fine diversity of different ways for getting where they're not supposed to be. More options as to what is your rogues preferred form of sneaky can only be good right?

[Great Dragon]

Between their third and Ninth level ability, an Inquisitive Rogue gains speed and advantage for detecting traps, secret doors and other hidden objects. So if you include searching for traps in your door opening routine, they do it at the same speed as a Thief or Arcane Trickster.
Most Rogue Archetypes include something that makes them better at subterfuge, (Mastermind and Assassin both get useful tricks for disguises.) They may not all be good for dealing with traps, (although half are,) but I think that is fine diversity of different ways for getting where they're not supposed to be. More options as to what is your rogues preferred form of sneaky can only be good right?

Don't get me wrong - I really do like the variety of the various 5e Subclasses - of all the Classes!
Like I said elsewhere, I'm still learning all the tricks of DM-ing 5e.

I just really did not like the Background feature being able to exactly match the non-Expert Rogue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Don't get me wrong - I really do like the variety of the various Subclasses - of all the Classes!
Like I said elsewhere, I'm still learning all the tricks of DM-ing 5e.

I just really did not like the Background feature being able to exactly match the non-Expert Rogue.

A non-expert rogue is someone who has stated that they don't want to be any better than an urchin at opening locks (because really, that's all that Thieves Tool proficiency is needed for). It's a question of opportunity cost and letting the fiction control, something this edition has prioritized.

Note that locks aren't incredibly hard to pick in this edition--the standard lock is a DC 15, retriable check. This means that as long as someone has proficiency (which standard locks require) they can open any lock without a check given 1 minute (10x as long as normal). You only need to make a check if you need it open now, and many rogues can do it even quicker. This is a conscious design choice. Locked doors are necessary by the fiction, but not that interesting and tend toward the binary--either you can do it or you can't. They did not want to require a rogue (which is what 3e tried to do, except magic happened), so rogues can't be noticeably better without cost (because otherwise it turns into a Shadowrun decking/astral plane situation, where there's this minigame that no one else can participate in).

Edit: and being an Urchin (or choosing Thieves Tools as a background proficiency) has an opportunity cost. You're giving up a skill choice that you might find useful. Rogues get it and 4 skills for free, plus expertise. This means that a baseline rogue has 6 skills (4 + 2 from background) and thieves tools--the best anyone else can do it 5 + thieves tools (bards). So while the numbers aren't bigger, they get thieves tools free of cost, while everyone else has to pay.

[Morty]

I played a rogue until level 6 and I don't think I picked a single lock, because the module didn't include them. D&D has just always had this weird fixation on making them sound way more important than they are, but 5E lets up on that a bit.

[Pex]

Yes, but without that Expertise, they are exactly the same chance - which is my point.
Now if the Monk picks up prodigy they can pace outpace the above Rogue.

So? That's the player's choice. If a Rogue player doesn't want to be the supreme expert of dealing with locks and traps why should he have to? The Monk player wants to be that good at it, so let him. Classes give a set of abilities, but players get to choose what they want to focus on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So? That's the player's choice. If a Rogue player doesn't want to be the supreme expert of dealing with locks and traps why should he have to? The Monk player wants to be that good at it, so let him. Classes give a set of abilities, but players get to choose what they want to focus on.

And the monk picking up Prodigy and choosing thieves tools is incurring a large opportunity cost: a feat and a weak (by many standards) choice of targets for that feat. That's a strong signal that they want to be good at it.

[johnbragg]

Maybe I'm just an old 3x Grognard?
I still believe that the Basic Rogue should still be more skilled at Traps and Locks then some Random Joe with the right Background.

I think, over time, it just turned out to be an unfun play experience. Did you ever play a Rogue at the table, and have a really good experience based on the fact that you were super good at locks and traps? Were the Moments of Awesome of beating a crazy DC lock check memorable experiences?


I would consider allowing the PC that made a Rogue that had Criminal/Urchin to pick either another Skill or Language.

That's fair, but would you extend that to a lot of class/background combos that have redundant skills?

Another option would be to houserule that redundant Proficiency gives you automatic Advantage.

[JackPhoenix]

That's fair, but would you extend that to a lot of class/background combos that have redundant skills?

Another option would be to houserule that redundant Proficiency gives you automatic Advantage.

It's no houserule, it's RAW: "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."

[Great Dragon]

1) I think, over time, it just turned out to be an unfun play experience. Did you ever play a Rogue at the table, and have a really good experience based on the fact that you were super good at locks and traps? Were the Moments of Awesome of beating a crazy DC lock check memorable experiences?

2) That's fair, but would you extend that to a lot of class/background combos that have redundant skills?

3) Another option would be to houserule that redundant Proficiency gives you automatic Advantage.

1) Yes, but then those experiences go back to 3x and AD&D 1e.

2) Already aswered.

3) Giving Advantage would most likey be too much of a Bonus, even for being applied to all Backgrounds.

I can just see that Halfling Thief Expert Dungeon Delver being even more Crazy with Advantage!!!

[Vorok]

If you have a large enough Party, sure. I rarely see over 5 Players at any given table.
So, yes - if a Party already has a Bear Barbarian, a Life Cleric, a Dragon Sorcerer,
and a Thief Rogue - the Bard would not really be needed.

The Bard would be a Roleplaying Choice on the Player's part.

Not true, the Bard can fill the control niche, that none of the other four would be quite as good as the Bard.
Dissonant Whispers, Faerie Fire, Stinking Cloud, Hypnotic Pattern, heck, even the Vicious Mockery cantrip can have an effect on the battlefield.

[Chronos]

It's worth noting that, even in 3rd edition, you could play "fighter who started off as an enforcer for the Thieves' Guild, and so knows how to disarm traps". It's just that, in 3e, you'd do that by taking a one-level dip in rogue. A 5e background like Criminal is conceptually just replacing that one-level dip.

[Great Dragon]

Not true, the Bard can fill the control niche, that none of the other four would be quite as good as the Bard.

Dissonant Whispers, Faerie Fire, Stinking Cloud, Hypnotic Pattern, heck, even the Vicious Mockery cantrip can have an effect on the battlefield.

How about swapping the Sorcerer for Wizard?
Bard still not redundant?
Not counting Inspiration.

Some good points, here.
I'll adjust yet.

[Max_Killjoy]

More generically (and to @Max_Killjoy's question)--D&D adventurers are not experts at anything but adventuring, in the main. They're the epitome of generalists. They all started out (in concept) as 1st level characters. Apprentices. They then leveled up and gained strength by adventuring. In doing so, they each specialized in a particular form of adventuring. A wizard adventurer is going to be really good at casting spells, even under amazing circumstances. And at figuring out which of those runes to press so it doesn't go KA-BOOM!. Discussing hermeneutics and ontologies of magic in abstruse texts? Not so much. Adventurers are graduates of the Hard Knocks College of Applied Adventuring. They're not academics, they're not "experts" unless they have class features that say they are.


Is this actually stated and laid out anywhere in the "fiction" or "rules" layer of 5e's texts?

[Great Dragon]

That's fair, but would you extend that to a lot of class/background combos that have redundant skills?

Missed responding to this, sorry.
And yes.

@Max_Killjoy - Not really stated in any of the D&D books (that I can remember), but usually an Implied "understanding" of RPGs by a lot of Players, I think.

@PhoenixPhyre Remember that "Adventuring as a Career" was something only Adventurers would do, and they were Experts at doing what they were focused on, which was divided by Class (mostly to help Players understand the differences between them, but most NPCs would be able to understand the Basics) - most People (NPCs) stayed at home and rarely encountered Dangerous Monsters. It would happen from time to time - The Orc Horde, The Goblinoid Invasion, The Wandering Giant, the Rampaging (Colored) Dragon, etc.

- Another thing that is Implied is the fact that the NPCs are supposed to be able to gain "Levels" at whatever they do. It's just that it usually takes Decades - for long lived Races (Elves and Dwarves) Centuries - for them to do this, where the PCs are on the Fast-track at a few Years (in some Wacky cases, Months)- due to Adventuring.

3x had the NPC Classes that showed this, but these were dropped from 5e
- mostly because only the most dedicated and detailed DMs really cared about it.

I believe that Gygax himself had a lot of Class Leveled NPCs in the Old D&D and AD&D 1e Modules
- it was just that they almost never went beyond 5th or 7th Level. Where most 'normal' People would "Retire from Adventuring".

The exception to this Unspoken Rule (maybe there was a short blurb about Leveling NPCs somewhere, but I don't recall exactly where, and am not inclined to read through 40+ Years of Gaming material to find it. I'm a Nerd, not a Geek!) were the Personal Characters of the various "designers" - from Mordenkainen and Elminster to Ottoluk, but even not all the Named Wizards (Otto, Bigby, Etc) really had PC sheets! Don't ask me to name which ones did or didn't - or what PC went to Who.

I still tend to give my Important NPCs (PC) Class levels, just to prevent those Murder Hobo PCs from just kick-stomping every NPC they come across.

[Vorok]

How about swapping the Sorcerer for Wizard?
Bard still not redundant?
Not counting Inspiration.

Some good points, here.
I'll adjust yet.

If you swap Sorcerer for a Wizard, you lose a Cha-based caster who can have high social skills, so Bard can fill the role of party face, the Bard can focus on Illusion/Enchantment magic, while the Wizard gets everything else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you swap Sorcerer for a Wizard, you lose a Cha-based caster who can have high social skills, so Bard can fill the role of party face, the Bard can focus on Illusion/Enchantment magic, while the Wizard gets everything else.

I'm currently playing a Warlock 2/Bard X in a game with a Wizard X+2. We feel completely different--I have very few blasting spells (relying on EB for damage) and lots of support/buff/debuff/control spells. She has mainly damage spells (Evocation specialty). She fireballs things, I heal/debuff/control/play face.

[Great Dragon]

I see.
And that's not even adding a Subclass for the Bard.

Thanks.

Looks like 5e does a lot better at the Class balance thing.
Sure, some things overlap - but no Class feels completely left out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see.
And that's not even adding a Subclass for the Bard.

Thanks.

Looks like 5e does a lot better at the Class balance thing.
Sure, some things overlap - but no Class feels completely left out.

Right. Rangers have the weakest identity, but in an exploration heavy game you're glad to have them and they're competent in combat. Everyone else is mostly balanced and has a clear identity. Even the most "broken" (but non-cheesy) combos (PAM/GWM, SS/CBE) are really only good in combat at dealing heavy damage (and even then only a tiny fraction of an ubercharger or mailman sorcerer even at high level) and struggle at, for instance, dealing with hordes of creatures (which is a common 5e scenario).

All the cheesy combos (wish loops, etc) require substantial liberties with the rules (and so a very permissive DM).

[Great Dragon]

(PAM/GWM, SS/CBE)

Um, still getting these abbreviations.

GWM = Great Weapon Master Feat

SS = Sharp Shooter Feat

PAM and CBE?

[stoutstien]

Um, still getting these abbreviations.

GWM = Great Weapon Master Feat

SS = Sharp Shooter Feat

PAM and CBE?
Pole arm master
Cross bow expert

[Chronos]

Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert, both feats.

[Great Dragon]

thanks stoutstien and Chronos!!

[Misterwhisper]

Um, still getting these abbreviations.

GWM = Great Weapon Master Feat

SS = Sharp Shooter Feat

PAM and CBE?

Polearm master
And
Crossbow expert.

Rule of 5e.
Action economy is king
“Bound accuracy” is the rule except for all the exceptions
Getting a bonus action attack is superior to all other armed combat choices.

[Great Dragon]

Polearm master
And
Crossbow expert.

Thanks.


Rule of 5e.
Action economy is king
Right!


“Bound accuracy” is the rule except for all the exceptions

Was this a joke? I'm not sure if I understood it correctly if it wasn't.
I know that SS allows the PC to hit targets that have less than Full Cover...


Getting a bonus action attack is superior to all other armed combat choices.

I did like the fact that 5e limits Spellcasters so that they don't overwhelm the DM's encounters.
Casting a spell as a Bonus Action means that they can only cast a Cantrip with
a CT of 1 Action with their (attack) action - (I still have to do this to keep it straight in my head.)

They can still cast a Reaction spell in the same Round.

[JackPhoenix]

Thanks.

Was this a joke? I'm not sure if I understood it correctly if it wasn't.
I know that SS allows the PC to hit targets that have less than Full Cover...

I did like the fact that 5e limits Spellcasters so that they don't overwhelm the DM's encounters.
Casting a spell as a Bonus Action means that they can only cast a Cantrip with
a CT of 1 Action with their (attack) action - (I still have to do this to keep it straight in my head.)

They can still cast a Reaction spell in the same Round.

In the same round, yes, in the same turn, nope. Once you cast spell as a BA, you're limited to cantrips for both action and reaction.

[Great Dragon]

In the same round, yes, in the same turn, nope. Once you cast spell as a BA, you're limited to cantrips for both action and reaction.

I did not know that - will need to look for where it is so that I can shoot down those Rule Lawyers.

[stoutstien]

I did not know that - will need to look for where it is so that I can shoot down those Rule Lawyers.

Turn and round cause a lot of confusion.
If I recall the Spell casting rules state- if you cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action you cannot cast a spell other than a cantrip of one action during the same TURN.
So your correct that if u say cast Misty step you can still cast counterspell if you don't do so during your turn.
Strangely enough if you use action surge you can bypass this rule by granting an additional a action.

[Max_Killjoy]

Turn and round cause a lot of confusion.
If I recall the Spell casting rules state- if you cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action you cannot cast a spell other than a cantrip of one action during the same TURN.
So your correct that if u say cast Misty step you can still cast counterspell if you don't do so during your turn.
Strangely enough if you use action surge you can bypass this rule by granting an additional a action.

So you can use a reaction to cast a spell, or certain spells that qualify, during someone else's turn in that same round, then? ????

[JackPhoenix]

I did not know that - will need to look for where it is so that I can shoot down those Rule Lawyers.

PHB, spellcasting rules, the same place where it talks about spells with BA casting time. Won't give you page, though, I'm not looking through the books right now. It's in the SRD too.


Turn and round cause a lot of confusion.
If I recall the Spell casting rules state- if you cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action you cannot cast a spell other than a cantrip of one action during the same TURN.
So your correct that if u say cast Misty step you can still cast counterspell if you don't do so during your turn.
Strangely enough if you use action surge you can bypass this rule by granting an additional a action.

Partially. If you use Action Surge, you'll get another ACTION, which you can use to cast a spell without issues. Unless you cast a spell as a BA in the same turn, then you're still screwed.


So you can use a reaction to cast a spell, or certain spells that qualify, during someone else's turn in that same round, then? ????

Yes. You can't do it with Ready, though, as the spell is still cast as an Action, but not triggered until you use your Reaction.

[stoutstien]

So you can use a reaction to cast a spell, or certain spells that qualify, during someone else's turn in that same round, then? ????
right of the open source rules:
Casting Time
Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.

Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Reactions
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.

turn is defined in the combat section:
"typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other"

but then round is fluid. pretty much round covers any time until the start of your next turn. look at the wording of
the shield spell vs chill touch. one ends at the start of your turn and the other the end.

so yes a player can in fact cast a BA spell then a reaction spell because it is no longer "in turn."

[Great Dragon]

So, just to make sure I got this right -

Cast a Bonus Action Spell.
Cast an Action Cantrip
Cast a Reaction Spell - but not on your Turn in the Round.

Both the BA and the RA spells have to have this stated in their Casting Times.

[stoutstien]

So, just to make sure I got this right -

Cast a Bonus Action Spell.
Cast an Action Cantrip
Cast a Reaction Spell - but not on your Turn in the Round.

Both the BA and the RA spells have to have this stated in their Casting Times.
Yep. I had a hard time wrapping my head around it when I was reading meta magic and the spell casting rules.

[Man_Over_Game]

So, just to make sure I got this right -

Cast a Bonus Action Spell.
Cast an Action Cantrip
Cast a Reaction Spell - but not on your Turn in the Round.

Both the BA and the RA spells have to have this stated in their Casting Times.

And then you throw in Action Surge into the mix, and confuse the hell out of everyone.

[Great Dragon]

Thanks! This helps, a lot.


And then you throw in Action Surge into the mix, and confuse the hell out of everyone.

I mean I can Houserule that if you cast a BA your still restricted to Cantrips for that Action Surge.
I believe that it does say that you don't get another BA with this.

But - what about casting another Action Spell with this?
This would make it where every Sorcerer/Warlock (and Battle Mages) would always take 2 levels of Fighter!
Fireball! - Action Surge - Fireball!!
Should I allow only Cantrips for the Surge, just to prevent Power Gaming?

[noob]

Your forgetting rogue natural talent feature that makes it so they can never roll less than 10 on any skill check

Aire its like level 11 or 12 but that still makes them the most consistent trap disabler in the game
Along with the most consistent skill monkey being able to have better knowledge checks than any other class.
Level 11 is late.
A barbarian with the right proficiency will be better for the majority of any adventuring carrier(especially if the campaign stops before level 20) for that barbarian will be as good at removing the trap until level 11 and the barbarian is more tanky and thus less likely to die to the trap.

[Coffee_Dragon]

There's no general rule to forbid reaction spells during your turn, as long as the proper thing happens to reach to. E.g. trigger a trap, cast Absorb Elements or Feather Fall; suffer an opportunity attack, cast Shield. You could even Ready a spell and have it trigger later in your turn.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks! This helps, a lot.



Yes. I mean I can Houserule that if you cast a BA your still restricted to Cantrips for that Action Surge.
I believe that it does say that you don't get another BA with this.

But - what about casting another Action Spell with this?
This would make it where every Sorcerer/Warlock (and Battle Mages) would always take 2 levels of Fighter!
Fireball! - Action Surge - Fireball!!
Should I allow only Cantrips for the Surge, just to prevent Power Gaming?

No need to houserule that. That's officially how it works. Once you cast a spell with a Bonus Action, any other spell you cast in the same turn must be a cantrip. However, if you cast a leveled spell with an Action, you can cast another leveled spell using Action Surge.

It's not super overpowered. It's a lot of burst damage all at once, but it cost the mage 2 levels to do it while hurting his overall casting ability. The mage who didn't dip into Fighter now has an extra level of spells over the one who did. The level 5 Wizard/2 Fighter with 2 Fireballs is now spent for the rest of the day in the first round, but the level 7 Wizard can cast Greater Invisibility and 3 Fireballs throughout the day.

[Great Dragon]

Level 11 is late.
A barbarian with the right proficiency will be better for the majority of any adventuring carrier (especially if the campaign stops before level 20) for that barbarian will be as good at removing the trap until level 11 and the barbarian is more tanky and thus less likely to die to the trap.

Exactly! Plus Advantage to Dexterity Saves against anything they can see!

Although, Both Monk and Rogue do get Evasion at 7th level....

[Great Dragon]

No need to houserule that. That's officially how it works. Once you cast a spell with a Bonus Action, any other spell you cast in the same turn must be a cantrip. However, if you cast a leveled spell with an Action, you can cast another leveled spell using Action Surge.

It's not super overpowered. It's a lot of burst damage all at once, but it cost the mage 2 levels to do it while hurting his overall casting ability. The mage who didn't dip into Fighter now has an extra level of spells over the one who did.

There is the loss of a Higher level spell access....
I suppose that I'll just have to return to my 3x Houserules for those Power Players.

Anything the PC can do, so can their Foes!
Which mean that the Hobgoblin 5th level War Mage can also have 2 Fighter levels!
For that Fireball x2 Strike!!

[stoutstien]

There is the loss of a Higher level spell access....
I suppose that I'll just have to return to my 3x Houserules for those Power Players.

Anything the PC can do, so can their Foes!
Which mean that the Hobgoblin 5th level War Mage can also have 2 Fighter levels!
For that Fireball x2 Strike!!
like man_over_game said its trading all day power for burst. being 2 levels behind in caster class hurts a lot. when do you take them? ASAP or after you get 3rd level spells? but then it is putting off 4th lv spells ( banishment, wall of fire, greater invis and so on.)

damage is the easiest thing to counter as a DM. wizard banishing your heavy hitter while the party cleans up the trash is way above dropping a few fireballs

[noob]

There is the loss of a Higher level spell access....
I suppose that I'll just have to return to my 3x Houserules for those Power Players.

Anything the PC can do, so can their Foes!
Which mean that the Hobgoblin 5th level War Mage can also have 2 Fighter levels!
For that Fireball x2 Strike!!

In 3.5 it was not a houserule but a phenomenon arising from the fact that monsters are the same thing as characters.
Of course 5e gave up on uniformity between monsters and characters.

[Aussiehams]

Level 11 is late.
A barbarian with the right proficiency will be better for the majority of any adventuring carrier(especially if the campaign stops before level 20) for that barbarian will be as good at removing the trap until level 11 and the barbarian is more tanky and thus less likely to die to the trap.

But the Rogue can take expertise and be better, and is more likely to have max Dex than the Barb, and can possibly do it as a bonus action, and better investigation to find the trap initially, and have evasion/uncanny dodge for if they get it wrong, so is going to be better more often than not if they want to be the lock/trap guy.

Personally I hated that parts of an adventure could be completely locked off if no one in the group wanted to play a rogue. I think anyone being able to fill in any role, but only certain classes being able to excel, is a big plus of 5E.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's no general rule to forbid reaction spells during your turn, as long as the proper thing happens to reach to. E.g. trigger a trap, cast Absorb Elements or Feather Fall; suffer an opportunity attack, cast Shield. You could even Ready a spell and have it trigger later in your turn.


So even if you've cast a spell using your normal action, you can also cast a reaction-qualified spell if the conditions are met afterwards during your own turn.

[stoutstien]

So even if you've cast a spell using your normal action, you can also cast a reaction-qualified spell if the conditions are met afterwards during your own turn.correct. the restrictions only apply to spell cast with a bonus action.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So even if you've cast a spell using your normal action, you can also cast a reaction-qualified spell if the conditions are met afterwards during your own turn.

Correct.

Bonus actions are special. Since you don't have one until something gives it to you, each possible use has its own limitations that don't apply to other action types. Some have specified timing (flurry of blows is a key example here--you must do it immediately after you resolve the Attack action). Others happen only on triggers. Bonus action spells incur restrictions on other leveled spells. As exceptions themselves, they each have to be analyzed separately.

So phrasing it as "you can only cast one leveled spell per turn" is wrong--if somehow you had 52 actions, you could cast 53 leveled spells, as long as each one had a casting time of 1 action (and one had a casting time of 1 reaction). But if you have 52 actions and cast 1 bonus action spell, then all other 52 spells would have to be single-action cantrips and you couldn't cast a reaction-spell either. But those restrictions don't apply off-turn. It's the same reasoning as to why rogues can get Sneak Attack 2x a round--once on their turn and once on an OA because SA only says "once per turn" and doesn't say whose turn.

[Great Dragon]

In 3.5 it was not a houserule but a phenomenon arising from the fact that monsters are the same thing as characters.
Well, almost. A lot had Monster HD + Level Adjustments. Especially if the Savage Species was being used.
IiRc - only Goblin, Orc, and Kobold didn't.


Of course 5e gave up on uniformity between monsters and characters.

I am glad that Volo's and Mord's did bring all the Humanoids back to being accessable to PCs.
But then in my 5e Games - the only Races that Players have to work hard on a Background Story to play are: Bugbear, Yuan-ti, and Gnoll.

[greenstone]

After all, even a 20 str raging barbarian can roll a one failing to break those chains and Joe commoner can roll a natural 20 and break them.

Note that 5E doesn't have automatic successes or failures on skill checks. A roll of 1 might still succeed and a roll of 20 might still fail.

In other words, a non-proficient Strength 8 character cannot (without some sort of help) overcome a difficulty 20 check. Similarly, a proficient 9th level character with Strength 20 cannot fail a difficulty 10 check.

Same goes for saving throws. I have had my ranger make a save even though I rolled a 1.

[Great Dragon]

Same goes for saving throws. I have had my ranger make a save even though I rolled a 1.

This must have been a Houserule.
Since I recall that a 1 on a Attack Roll and Save always failed.
Unless you're a Halfling, and can always reroll 1s.

[JNAProductions]

This must have been a Houserule.
Since I recall that a 1 on a Attack Roll and Save always failed.
Unless you're a Halfling, and can always reroll 1s.

That only applies to attack rolls.

It does not apply to ability checks or saves. It's why +9 to Con saves is so damn good-you need 22 or more damage to even have a CHANCE of failing your Concentration saves.

[stoutstien]

This must have been a Houserule.
Since I recall that a 1 on a Attack Roll and Save always failed.
Unless you're a Halfling, and can always reroll 1s. the only time the 1 miss/20 hit is in the combat section with combat rolls.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I've been in love with Rogues since waaaay back when they were called Thieves, which is a long long time. I am more or less satisfied with 5e's take on them, and I believe any old-timer can be too, provided you get unstuck from some of 3rd Edition's assumptions / conventions.

In 3.5, a fully optimised full caster could outshine everyone else, and basically do anything you could do except better. And in THAT context, the clause "Rogues and only Rogues can find traps with DC>20" was a big deal.

In addition, Rogues weren't a reliable DPS by any means. You could take Craven and invest all sorts of things to sneak attack and end up with a spectacular number on paper, but it came with terms and conditions.

So you'd say "sure, my signature rogue ability is so badly designed that I can't shank people in a dark alley (because creatures in shadowy illumination have concealment! and I can't sneak attack creatures with concealment!), and it takes a whole lotta work to trigger, and a ton of creatures are summarily immune to it anyway, making me little more than a glorified commoner in your standard undead-infested dungeon unless I optimise to high heavens just to overcome the class's inherent flaws... but goshdarn, I CAN SEARCH FOR TRAPS AND NO ONE ELSE CAN!"

5e is not like that. There's no NEED for "rogues and only rogues" to be able to deal with traps. Others have already explained why rogues are still better suited to it, by far: between proficiency, Expertise, Reliable Talent, and having a DEX-based character, the Rogue is still the most likely to succeed that Thieves' Tools check. (Though for finding the trap in the first place, a WIS-based character with proficiency in Perception may be just as good, at least at low levels.)

If you're new to 5e, the Rogue's advantage may not be immediately apparent, because at low levels it's more of a crapshot. That's what happened to me the first time I played (lvl 1-3 IIRC), I actually said "aww, it doesn't feel like a skillmonkey". But give it time, stick to it for a few levels, and as the proficiency bonus goes up and new abilities are granted, you'll see what a SUPERB skillmonkey your Rogue can be. :smallsmile:

By the way, I started with AD&D 2nd Edition, when Thieves were the only ones who could even try to pick locks and disable traps and the like, and your probability of success became better and better at higher levels, but at low levels? At low levels YOU SUCKED. It was a BIG risk. You'd say "I attempt to disable the trap" and everyone in the party immediately fled like 100 ft away, because you'd probably explode right there and then. (A sensible precaution in all editions, I suppose, but in this case it was just comical.) I sometimes miss the company and the fun, but man, I don't miss those rules...

[noob]

Well, almost. A lot had Monster HD + Level Adjustments. Especially if the Savage Species was being used.
IiRc - only Goblin, Orc, and Kobold didn't.



I am glad that Volo's and Mord's did bring all the Humanoids back to being accessable to PCs.
But then in my 5e Games - the only Races that Players have to work hard on a Background Story to play are: Bugbear, Yuan-ti, and Gnoll.

That is false again: in fact monster hd + la + monster abilities are in fact all properties of monster classes which anyone can take(just do the ritual or start with the right race).

[Great Dragon]

the only time the 1 miss/20 hit is in the combat section with combat rolls.

Huh. Well, it's the only location that actually says that 1 misses and 20 hits
regardless of modifiers.....
Well, I guess this is where I houserule.... No one seems to mind that a 1 always fails
- because a 20 always succeeds at both Attack and Save Rolls, at my Table


That is false again: in fact monster hd + la + monster abilities are in fact all properties of monster classes which anyone can take(just do the ritual or start with the right race).

I do remember that there were Rituals that could Transform the PC into (almost) any Monster Race.
But when you were done, you were just the same as that Monster Race (including monster abilities) = HD + LA. The PC also lost all Original Racial Abilities.

Want to turn your Human PC into a Mind Flayer and than take Illithid Savant?
Start with ECL 15 Monster! The DM was free to exchange your Class Levels for these Monster Levels (and lose the Human's Bonus Feat and Skill Point/lv) as part of the Ritual. And then you can start taking the 10 levels of Savant Prestige Class.

And with starting as a Monster Race, in the Savage Species, you had to take all the Monster Levels (+LA included) to get the full benefits.

Example: The Centaur was a 3 HD Monster with a +2 Level Adjustment = 5th ECL.
And than adding Class Levels!

Heck even the 3x Hobgoblin was a 0 HD + 1 LA!
I did Houserule this to get rid of the +1 LA.


By the way, I started with AD&D 2nd Edition, when Thieves were the only ones who could even try to pick locks and disable traps and the like, and your probability of success became better and better at higher levels, but at low levels? At low levels YOU SUCKED. It was a BIG risk. You'd say "I attempt to disable the trap" and everyone in the party immediately fled like 100 ft away, because you'd probably explode right there and then. (A sensible precaution in all editions, I suppose, but in this case it was just comical.) I sometimes miss the company and the fun, but man, I don't miss those rules...

Heh. Yep. I started with AD&D 1e.

Like I said, I like the basic design of 5e, and actually don't mind that the other Classes can do some of the things that were limited to only One Class.

I was just a little sad to see that there was no way to distinguish between a Low Level, non-Expertised Rogue and Random Joe. Even if it was something like a +1 or +2 bonus - or something.

Because the Fighter should not be able to duplicate a Barbarian's DR, much less a Bear Totem, etc. At least not without Level Dipping.

And the Barbarian 3 Bear Totem/Paladin 3 Ancients is very scary!
Nearly unstoppable and Smiting! Because sacrificing spell levels is not the same as casting them.

But, the good news (to me at least) is that this PC will never be as Powerful as a 6th Level of either Class.

[noob]

Huh. Well, it's the only location that actually says that 1 misses and 20 hits
regardless of modifiers.....
Well, I guess this is where I houserule.... No one seems to mind that a 1 always fails
- because a 20 always succeeds at both Attack and Save Rolls, at my Table



I do remember that there were Rituals that could Transform the PC into (almost) any Monster Race.
But when you were done, you were just the same as that Monster Race (including monster abilities) = HD + LA. The PC also lost all Original Racial Abilities.

Want to turn your Human PC into a Mind Flayer and than take Illithid Savant?
Start with ECL 15 Monster! The DM was free to exchange your Class Levels for these Monster Levels (and lose the Human's Bonus Feat and Skill Point/lv) as part of the Ritual. And then you can start taking the 10 levels of Savant Prestige Class.

And with starting as a Monster Race, in the Savage Species, you had to take all the Monster Levels (+LA included) to get the full benefits.

Example: The Centaur was a 3 HD Monster with a +2 Level Adjustment = 5th ECL.
And than adding Class Levels!

Heck even the 3x Hobgoblin was a 0 HD + 1 LA!
I did Houserule this to get rid of the +1 LA.



Heh. Yep. I started with AD&D 1e.

Like I said, I like the basic design of 5e, and actually don't mind that the other Classes can do some of the things that were limited to only One Class.

I was just a little sad to see that there was no way to distinguish between a Low Level, non-Expertised Rogue and Random Joe. Even if it was something like a +1 or +2 bonus - or something.

Because the Fighter should not be able to duplicate a Barbarian's DR, much less a Bear Totem, etc. At least not without Level Dipping.

And the Barbarian 3 Bear Totem/Paladin 3 Ancients is very scary!
Nearly unstoppable and Smiting! Because sacrificing spell levels is not the same as casting them.

But, the good news (to me at least) is that this PC will never be as Powerful as a 6th Level of either Class.

The thing is that the tools used to build monsters can be used by characters and the tools used to build characters can be used by monsters.

[JackPhoenix]

the only time the 1 miss/20 hit is in the combat section with combat rolls.

Well, in practice, it is true with other rolls as well, even if it's not explicit rule. If you can't succeed even on 20 or fail or 1, there's no point in rolling in the first place. You either fail or succeed automatically.

[Millstone85]

Well, in practice, it is true with other rolls as well, even if it's not explicit rule. If you can't succeed even on 20 or fail or 1, there's no point in rolling in the first place. You either fail or succeed automatically.Different perspective: Sometimes, the reason there is no point in rolling is because you can't always succeed on 20 or fail on 1.

Like this:
1) Player A attempts a task.
2) DM sets DC for check.
3) Player A rolls and fails.
4) Player B wants to try too.
5) DM sees player B would succeed even on a 1.
6) DM says player B automatically succeeds.

That never happens with attack rolls, because of natural 1/20 rules.

[stoutstien]

Well, in practice, it is true with other rolls as well, even if it's not explicit rule. If you can't succeed even on 20 or fail or 1, there's no point in rolling in the first place. You either fail or succeed automatically.
This goes back to the problem OP had with a random Joe picking lock better than a PC with expertise and class features due to unlucky rolls.
Should a PC every fail a DC 5 if they have Prof and expertise in a skill? In my opinion no. They took those opportunity costs for a reason.

[Great Dragon]

The thing is that the tools used to build monsters can be used by characters and the tools used to build characters can be used by monsters.

Exactly!
Those Monsters still get Feats at 1 HD, 3 HD, etc - and Ability Adjustments at every 4th HD.
But - remember that LA does not grant either of these things.
Heck, I had to Houserule that they still got 1d8 hp/LA just to give them LA PCs a little more survivability.

That Human -now- Illithid can exchange their Old Feats (except the Human Bonus Feat) for any wanted Feat or Monster Feat that they qualify for.

But, I'm amazed at how many times I've had to argue with Rule Lawyers about this.
Especially AD&D 1e/2e.

[Great Dragon]

Different perspective: Sometimes, the reason there is no point in rolling is because you can't always succeed on 20 or fail on 1.

Like this:
1) Player A attempts a task.
2) DM sets DC for check.
3) Player A rolls and fails.
4) Player B wants to try too.
5) DM sees player B would succeed even on a 1.
6) DM says player B automatically succeeds.

That never happens with attack rolls, because of natural 1/20 rules.

IMO this should also apply for Saves - since the 5th Level Party accidentally stumbling on the CR 11 Beholder's Lair should still have a chance to resist all the Eye Rays coming at them, except maybe Antimagic.

This can happen in my game, because I run a Living World - not a series of specifically prepared encounters - and if I put that there is a Beholder in a certain area, I leave it there. Players should pay attention to clues about the hazards and dangers around their PCs.

[Great Dragon]

This goes back to the problem OP had with a random Joe picking lock better than a PC with expertise and class features due to unlucky rolls.
:smallbiggrin:

Should a PC every fail a DC 5 if they have Prof and expertise in a skill? In my opinion no. They took those opportunity costs for a reason.

Actually, if they have Expertise they can't fail a DC 5. 2 x2 Expertise + 0 Dex +1 Roll = 5.
But my grip was that the (Dex below +2 mod) 1st level Rogue without Expertise could.

Dang it! Stupid phone making me post multiple times!!!

[stoutstien]

IMO this should also apply for Saves - since the 5th Level Party accidentally stumbling on the CR 11 Beholder's Lair should still have a chance to resist all the Eye Rays coming at them, except maybe Antimagic.

This can happen in my game, because I run a Living World - not a series of specifically prepared encounters - and if I put that there is a Beholder in a certain area, I leave it there. Players should pay attention to clues about the hazards and dangers around their PCs.
Fog cloud*
Darkness*
Silent image*
Beholder has little mobility so players can run away*
*With DC of 16 players CAN make the saves as long as they player has over a 6 Wis. So the 20 auto save would be redundant.

[Great Dragon]

Fog cloud*
Darkness*
Silent image*
Beholder has little mobility so players can run away*
*With DC of 16 players CAN make the saves as long as they player has over a 6 Wis. So the 20 auto save would be redundant.

The spells can be shut down by Antimagic, but once the AM is gone, do they come back if less than their duration? This was true for 3x, but am not sure about 5e.

The bolded line is their best chance of escaping.

Hummm....

[JNAProductions]

The spells can be shut down by Antimagic, but once the AM is gone, do they come back if less than their duration? This was true for 3x, but am not sure about 5e.

The bolded line is their best chance of escaping.

Hummm....

But the Beholder can't fire its rays in an antimagic field either. So...

[stoutstien]

The spells can be shut down by Antimagic, but once the AM is gone, do they come back if less than their duration? This was true for 3x, but am not sure about 5e.

The bolded line is their best chance of escaping.

Hummm....
Funny thing is if you are in the anti magic cone you are safe from the other eye stock rays. So if the party is smart and realize what they are facing they can disengage fairly quickly. Of course now a insane megalomaniac is aware of them so minions dogging the party would be a given

[Great Dragon]

JNAProductions

But the Beholder can't fire its rays in an antimagic field either. So...


Funny thing is if you are in the anti magic cone you are safe from the other eye stock rays. So if the party is smart and realize what they are facing they can disengage fairly quickly. Of course now a insane megalomaniac is aware of them so minions dogging the party would be a given

Heh, yes, I knew that.
It was the do those spells come back when the Beholder turns AM off that was my question.
If the party was smart enough to cast those spells - and lucky to beat the Beholder in Initiative.
Either Fog Cloud or Darkness could give them enough cover to escape.

And I can totally see that the Beholder would not consider the Party enough of a threat to chase them personally, so sending minions would make sense....

[stoutstien]

Heh, yes, I knew that.
It was the do those spells come back when the Beholder turns AM off that was my question.
If the party was smart enough to cast those spells - and lucky to beat the Beholder in Initiative.
Either Fog Cloud or Darkness could give them enough cover to escape.

And I can totally see that the Beholder would not consider the Party enough of a threat to chase them personally, so sending minions would make sense....
In 5e the beholder anti-magic Ray is an anti-magic zone it doesn't dispel the magic it just suppresses it. So you can continue concentrating on the spell hoping that the beholder drops its Ray.

But all this is beside the point. Lol. The natural success/failure on saving throws isnt much help to PCs due to bounded accuracy. There's very few instances where in DC is over 20 so there's always a little bit of a chance of them passing.

[Great Dragon]

In 5e the beholder anti-magic Ray is an anti-magic zone it doesn't dispel the magic it just suppresses it. So you can continue concentrating on the spell hoping that the beholder drops its Ray.
Great! I don't mind giving the Party a challenge, but still want to give them a chance.


But all this is beside the point. Lol. The natural success/failure on saving throws isnt much help to PCs due to bounded accuracy. There's very few instances where in DC is over 20 so there's always a little bit of a chance of them passing.

Where is Bounded Accuracy?
I have yet to find and I'm AFK.

[JNAProductions]

Great! I don't mind giving the Party a challenge, but still want to give them a chance.

Where is Bounded Accuracy?
I have yet to find and I'm AFK.

Bounded Accuracy is a design principle that went into the creation of 5E.

Basically, while HP and damage can scale considerably, to-hit and AC stay relatively low. This helps ensure that lower-level mooks stay relevant even at the highest of levels.

Where in 3.5, you pretty quickly reached a point where an ordinary goblin only hits on a 20 (and then needed ANOTHER 20 to crit), in 5E, they have +4 to hit, against an AC that's unlikely to scale past 21. So they still hit 20% of the time, with one in four hits critting. (And that's for someone with Full Plate, Shield, and Defensive Fighting Style.)

While you CAN hit a point where they only hit on a nat 20 (Barbarian with 20 Dex, 24 Con, and a Shield) it almost always requires magic items, which are in the DM's hands, NOT the players'.

[stoutstien]

Bounded Accuracy is a design principle that went into the creation of 5E.

Basically, while HP and damage can scale considerably, to-hit and AC stay relatively low. This helps ensure that lower-level mooks stay relevant even at the highest of levels.

Where in 3.5, you pretty quickly reached a point where an ordinary goblin only hits on a 20 (and then needed ANOTHER 20 to crit), in 5E, they have +4 to hit, against an AC that's unlikely to scale past 21. So they still hit 20% of the time, with one in four hits critting. (And that's for someone with Full Plate, Shield, and Defensive Fighting Style.)

While you CAN hit a point where they only hit on a nat 20 (Barbarian with 20 Dex, 24 Con, and a Shield) it almost always requires magic items, which are in the DM's hands, NOT the players'.

Or on the note of saving throws. a paladin with max Cha, aura of protection, and Prof in con saves or the "what saving throw?" Concept.

[JNAProductions]

Or on the note of saving throws. a paladin with max Cha, aura of protection, and Prof in con saves or the "what saving throw?" Concept.

Monk 14/Paladin 6. ;)

[stoutstien]

Monk 14/Paladin 6. ;) ha! Be great for a high lv one shot. Would you go long death for tankness or tranquility for a huge action heal pool?

[JackPhoenix]

This goes back to the problem OP had with a random Joe picking lock better than a PC with expertise and class features due to unlucky rolls.
Should a PC every fail a DC 5 if they have Prof and expertise in a skill? In my opinion no. They took those opportunity costs for a reason.

That's what I'm talking about. If you can't fail even if you roll a 1, there's no point in rolling at all, you automatically succeed. And if you can't succeed even on a 20, there's also no point in rolling, you automatically fail. If you get to roll at all, 1 is always a failure and 20 is always a success. Other numbers can also be a failure or a success. depending on the DC and modifiers, but that's secondary.

A level 11+ rogue with expertise and appropriate ability score at 20 doesn't need to roll for any DC below 24. A non-proficient character with ability score of 8 doesn't need to roll for any DC above 19.

[JNAProductions]

That's what I'm talking about. If you can't fail even if you roll a 1, there's no point in rolling at all, you automatically succeed. And if you can't succeed even on a 20, there's also no point in rolling, you automatically fail. If you get to roll at all, 1 is always a failure and 20 is always a success. Other numbers can also be a failure or a success. depending on the DC and modifiers, but that's secondary.

Not true. You're rolling Charisma (Persuasion) to convince the king to help you rescue his children from a dragon. No matter how low you roll, he's going to help you-but on a 1, he might offer a few local guards and a sword or two, but on a 20, he'd be willing to loan you an ancestral magic item and send his personal bodyguard along with.

Degrees of success can matter.

[JackPhoenix]

Not true. You're rolling Charisma (Persuasion) to convince the king to help you rescue his children from a dragon. No matter how low you roll, he's going to help you-but on a 1, he might offer a few local guards and a sword or two, but on a 20, he'd be willing to loan you an ancestral magic item and send his personal bodyguard along with.

Degrees of success can matter.

Not per RAW. Ability checks use binary success/failure state. D&D doesn't use degrees of success. And even then, what you actually roll on the die matters less than the total result.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not true. You're rolling Charisma (Persuasion) to convince the king to help you rescue his children from a dragon. No matter how low you roll, he's going to help you-but on a 1, he might offer a few local guards and a sword or two, but on a 20, he'd be willing to loan you an ancestral magic item and send his personal bodyguard along with.

Degrees of success can matter.


"Degree of success" in various forms is a great alternative to binary results in the right circumstances, more systems should directly and explicitly make them part of the GM's toolkit. Things like "you're going to climb this wall eventually unless you 'fumble', it's just a matter of how long it takes you."

It's a task-resolution fix for the "roll until you fail" problem, without bringing in "conflict resolution" in systems where it makes no sense.

[stoutstien]

Not per RAW. Ability checks use binary success/failure state. D&D doesn't use degrees of success. And even then, what you actually roll on the die matters less than the total result.
Binary pass/fails are just no fun imo. But once again we're getting back to personal playstyle.
yes some checks are very binary did you make the half court shot or did you not? Did you get a bullseye playing darts.
Other things like breaking down a door? failed check may mean you have to hit it twice. Lost element of surprise.
Failed to pick a lock means it just takes your 5 minutes instead of a few seconds.
Stealth is a great example of degrees of success.a player could stay hidden but still make noise like an alert a guard not enough for them to shouting alarm but enough to check it out. Now they players have an other opportunity to make a choice vs failed roll. Role initiative.

So what if they can auto pass lower DC. They are heros/villains.

[JackPhoenix]

Other things like breaking down a door? failed check may mean you have to hit it twice. Lost element of surprise.

That's literally a binary result. Either you break the door, or you'll have to try again.


Failed to pick a lock means it just takes your 5 minutes instead of a few seconds.

Same thing. Either you succeed, or you'll have to try again. Or if there's no consequence for failure, you may take 10 times as long to autosucceed.


Stealth is a great example of degrees of success.a player could stay hidden but still make noise like an alert a guard not enough for them to shouting alarm but enough to check it out. Now they players have an other opportunity to make a choice vs failed roll. Role initiative.

That's not "degree of success". That's failure. You aren't hidden anymore if you made a noise that revealed your position. You may still be unseen, but that's irrelevant.

[stoutstien]

That's literally a binary result. Either you break the door, or you'll have to try again.



Same thing. Either you succeed, or you'll have to try again. Or if there's no consequence for failure, you may take 10 times as long to autosucceed.



That's not "degree of success". That's failure. You aren't hidden anymore if you made a noise that revealed your position. You may still be unseen, but that's irrelevant.
Semantics aside of what constitutes binary it's just a option on Different play styles. Just like I don't use critical pass/fall on saves there isn't a reason for you to use degrees of failure for ablity checks.

[Great Dragon]

That's not "degree of success". That's failure. You aren't hidden anymore if you made a noise that revealed your position. You may still be unseen, but that's irrelevant.

From my understanding of 5e, it doesn't matter at all whether the PC makes noise or trips and falls out into the open. The guard simply knows that there is someone there, and the DM decides on if the guard sounds the alarm or - if the DM decides that the PC is not immediately visible - investigates.

It's not like 3x, where Spot and Listen made a difference in which was noticed first.
And if not visible, could have Concealment from attacks.

But then all the versions of D&D had this problem of Pass/Fail, just different takes.

[stoutstien]

From my understanding of 5e, it doesn't matter at all whether the PC makes noise or trips and falls out into the open. The guard simply knows that there is someone there, and the DM decides on if the guard sounds the alarm or - if the DM decides that the PC is not immediately visible - investigates.

It's not like 3x, where Spot and Listen made a difference in which was noticed first.

But then all the versions of D&D had this problem of Pass/Fail, just different takes.
I think one of the best concepts of this edition compared to other was the idea of rulings not rules. As long as the DM is consistent with how they approach them it's extremely flexible.
The rules are there for the DM to use not there for players to abuse.

[Great Dragon]

I think one of the best concepts of this edition compared to other was the idea of rulings not rules. As long as the DM is consistent with how they approach them it's extremely flexible.
Perhaps more practice will help me to do this.


The rules are there for the DM to use not there for players to abuse.
Indeed. But I still get those that try.

[Rukelnikov]

And D&D (5e at least) has moved far away from niche protection. You don't need a cleric to heal (although it helps); there are no longer the long list of debilitating effects that can only be removed by clerics. You don't need a heavy armor type as a tank (although it can help). You don't need a wizard. So why in the world should you need a rogue (and only a rogue) to handle basic traps and locks? Note--most traps don't need thieves tool proficiency to trip. Most can be disabled or bypassed simply by smart play, as outlined in the DMG. Putting a shield up to block the dart trap. Putting a wedge under the pressure plate so it can't trigger. Tripping it, then running across as it resets. Etc.

How is that not disarming a trap?

By that logic, if I can explain the procedure of a proper tourniquete I don't need to roll Medicine

[stoutstien]

Perhaps more practice will help me to do this.


Indeed. But I still get those that try.
In 5e even the most optimized player is only going to be marginally better than someone who isn't. yes the wizard will shut down an encounter with sleep or the samurais going to go nuts with action surge/fighting spirt and wipe out a troll in one round but it is ok. As a DM your goal is to provide a good gaming experience for the other players and sometimes you fail. you can only succeed or learn.

[JackPhoenix]

From my understanding of 5e, it doesn't matter at all whether the PC makes noise or trips and falls out into the open. The guard simply knows that there is someone there, and the DM decides on if the guard sounds the alarm or - if the DM decides that the PC is not immediately visible - investigates.

It's not like 3x, where Spot and Listen made a difference in which was noticed first.
And if not visible, could have Concealment from attacks.

Well, it does matter. If the guard hears a noise, he knows there's someone (or something) there, and where. But he doesn't know who or what it is. It could be an intruder, it could be stray cat, it could be his boss testing his alertness. Unless he can see the intruder (or unless the noise is really distinctive), it could be anything. Revealing your position is not the end of the world, as you're still unseen... you can't Hide at all if you're clearly visible. So heavy obscurement at least, and possibly full cover (there are exceptional circumstances when you don't need heavy obscurement to hide (because of course there are, it's D&D), like being a wood elf in natural surroundings, or lightfoot halfling behind medium creature.). You've lost the surprise, but you may still get an advantage on your attacks until the guard can see you.

[Man_Over_Game]

From my understanding of 5e, it doesn't matter at all whether the PC makes noise or trips and falls out into the open. The guard simply knows that there is someone there, and the DM decides on if the guard sounds the alarm or - if the DM decides that the PC is not immediately visible - investigates.

It's not like 3x, where Spot and Listen made a difference in which was noticed first.
And if not visible, could have Concealment from attacks.

But then all the versions of D&D had this problem of Pass/Fail, just different takes.

Seconding that 5e is really fluid and works well with rulings, you could easily insert your own mechanics into the game and have it work out well.

For example, you could have it so that if an enemy hears you, your Stealth is made with Disadvantage. You can also make it so that if you're within the enemy's Line of Sight, they have Advantage on their Perception to notice you. Effectively, this creates a +5-+10 bonus in favor of the guard to determine where you are based on whether or not he can see you, hear you, or both.

I do something like this with my Improved Stealth homebrew in my signature. Check it out if you find Stealth to not be interesting enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How is that not disarming a trap?

By that logic, if I can explain the procedure of a proper tourniquete I don't need to roll Medicine

It's disarming them without proficiency in thieves tools, which was the point. Iirc they're even in the DMG as such. Thieves tools are needed most for locks. They can be used against traps, but they're not generally needed.

[stoutstien]

Even the most fanatical RAW following DM will run into at least one thing an session that they're going to have to make a spot ruling. Be it for narrative reasons. (Ball bearings on stairs) or because the rules don't cover it at all (how npc interact with illusions).

[Rukelnikov]

It's disarming them without proficiency in thieves tools, which was the point. Iirc they're even in the DMG as such. Thieves tools are needed most for locks. They can be used against traps, but they're not generally needed.

But if I can just explain any procedure, why do I need Medicine, or Artisan Tools ("First we cut the wood like so..."), or maybe even survival ("The mushroom has patches of white? Don't eat it its poisonous")?

[stoutstien]

But if I can just explain any procedure, why do I need Medicine, or Artisan Tools ("First we cut the wood like so..."), or maybe even survival ("The mushroom has patches of white? Don't eat it its poisonous")?
Then we enter the player knowledge vs. Character knowledge paradigm again.
The big difference between a thief using their tools to disarm a trap vs jerry-rigging is if it's you guesses wrong on how the trap operate it could be really really bad

[Rukelnikov]

Then we enter the player knowledge vs. Character knowledge paradigm again.

Exactly the point.


The big difference between a thief using their tools to disarm a trap vs jerry-rigging is if it's you guesses wrong on how the trap operate it could be really really bad

The thief can also trigger the trap with a bad roll

[JackPhoenix]

Exactly the point.

So in your games, if a player has read the adventure (assuming you're running a published adventure, for the sake of argument) and knows the plot, all secrets and the location of all traps, enemies and treasures up front, the character knows it too and can act accordingly?

[Man_Over_Game]

It's disarming them without proficiency in thieves tools, which was the point. Iirc they're even in the DMG as such. Thieves tools are needed most for locks. They can be used against traps, but they're not generally needed.

I'd be interested to see a poll of where people stand on that kind of topic.

Is it okay if the 8 intelligence Barbarian is putting pitons in the floor to block doors to make a one-way door jam?

Should the clueless Sorcerer be able to use Magic Mouth multiple times to create a binary processing chip, capable of executing computer commands?

If a player writes down every detail of the party's direction, but the character isn't an outlander, Ranger, and has no talent in Survival, Perception, History or Investigation, can the character ever be lost?

[Rukelnikov]

So in your games, if a player has read the adventure (assuming you're running a published adventure, for the sake of argument) and knows the plot, all secrets and the location of all traps, enemies and treasures up front, the character knows it too and can act accordingly?

I think you are reading it backwards

[Max_Killjoy]

I think one of the best concepts of this edition compared to other was the idea of rulings not rules. As long as the DM is consistent with how they approach them it's extremely flexible.

The rules are there for the DM to use not there for players to abuse.


IMO, the rules are there for everyone to use, and no one to abuse. "Rulings not rules" as a blanket policy seems to break that basic concept of fairness and push the system towards outright DM fiat in the same way that some diceless systems do.

[Great Dragon]

So in your games, if a player has read the adventure (assuming you're running a published adventure, for the sake of argument) and knows the plot, all secrets and the location of all traps, enemies and treasures up front, the character knows it too and can act accordingly?

This was done to me so often in older D&D, it was a huge Pet Peeve for me.

Even if I was running a module, I'd automatically sit down and change things in it.

I still tend to do this, because so many Players have already played all the poblished Adventures that they just yawn at me running it normally.


IMO, the rules are there for everyone to use, and no one to abuse. "Rulings not rules" as a blanket policy seems to break that basic concept of fairness and push the system towards outright DM fiat the say some diceless systems do.

Actually, I argree. I use the rules to better help my Players interact with the game, and I'll limit myself on what I, as the DM, can have the Monsters and Villians do.

I'm not just going to change things "on the fly" to make things more complicated or difficult for the Party.

Neither side should be trying to Break the Game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But if I can just explain any procedure, why do I need Medicine, or Artisan Tools ("First we cut the wood like so..."), or maybe even survival ("The mushroom has patches of white? Don't eat it its poisonous")?

There is no rule that traps require Thieves Tool proficiency to disarm. The DM is always free to resolve the situation as he sees fit.

And this particular case is explicitly called out as something to consider in the DMG. In fact, it recommends that if they find a way to bypass the trap "directly", don't even have them roll. That's because the fiction controls. This is something a character can directly do (which makes it very different than knowing what's coming up in the module).

Thieves tool proficiency helps (because you can use it even if you don't have a "clever" way of bypassing it). But it's never required unless the trap itself says it is.

Note that recognizing that this trap can be bypassed in a certain way may require an Intelligence (Investigation) check (in addition to a Wisdom (Perception) check to find what's out of place).

Gating trap disablement behind thieves tools proficiency is contrary to most of 5e's design.

[Aussiehams]

But if I can just explain any procedure, why do I need Medicine, or Artisan Tools ("First we cut the wood like so..."), or maybe even survival ("The mushroom has patches of white? Don't eat it its poisonous")?

The point is, you don't need it. Just because you have vague knowledge of something doesn't mean you can do it successfully.

Anyone can try to put on a tourniquet to stabilise somebody, and it's a straight wisdom roll to see if you put it on in the right location, correct pressure etc. If you are proficient, it means you have trained in it, and are likely to do it better. Basically think of the difference of someone that has seen it done in a movie, vs. a trained combat medic. Same with all skills, I vaguely know that some mushrooms are poisonous and can try to figure it out, but a trained survivalist is more likely to pick the right ones.

It's up to the DM to determine what is common knowledge and makes sense in the world, and even decide if any check is needed. It can take some policing re player vs. character knowledge, but hopefully most players are reasonable and try not to game the system too much..

[PhoenixPhyre]

The point is, you don't need it. Just because you have vague knowledge of something doesn't mean you can do it successfully.

Anyone can try to put on a tourniquet to stabilise somebody, and it's a straight wisdom roll to see if you put it on in the right location, correct pressure etc. If you are proficient, it means you have trained in it, and are likely to do it better. Basically think of the difference of someone that has seen it done in a movie, vs. a trained combat medic. Same with all skills, I vaguely know that some mushrooms are poisonous and can try to figure it out, but a trained survivalist is more likely to pick the right ones.

It's up to the DM to determine what is common knowledge and makes sense in the world, and even decide if any check is needed. It can take some policing re player vs. character knowledge, but hopefully most players are reasonable and try not to game the system too much..

Right. Skills are not independent, primary elements in 5e. Ability checks are. Only very specific tasks require proficiency in a skill or tool--on all others it's simply a bonus to your chances.

In the cases I mentioned, having proficiency in Thieves Tools would make any resulting checks easier. But anyone can hammer a wedge in. Will they do it right? Dunno. But most cases, traps aren't interesting enough by themselves to worry about. Complex traps are much better, and even those don't always (or even usually) require proficiency. They require specific actions (press that button, not the other one). Knowing how to use a mirror on a stick, little cutters, and pliers won't help there.

[Great Dragon]

Another thing is that a lot of Players don't want to RP. HOW they disable a trap, or identify that poisonous mushroom.
They just want to make a Roll, get a Pass/Fail result and move on.

But, at least to me, D&D is both.
Describe what the PC is doing, and make a Roll. Only then do I describe what happened.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another thing is that a lot of Players don't want to RP. HOW they disable a trap, or identify that poisonous mushroom.
They just want to make a Roll, get a Pass/Fail result and move on.

But, at least to me, D&D is both.
Describe what the PC is doing, and make a Roll. Only then do I describe what happened.

I mostly agree, but 5e does emphasize that a roll is only needed if there's significant uncertainty and actual consequences for failure. No more "roll to step over that log" mentality that presumes incompetence on the part of the adventurers. Most things should just take a description, not a roll, IMO.

[stoutstien]

This was done to me so often in older D&D, it was a huge Pet Peeve for me.

Even if I was running a module, I'd automatically sit down and change things in it.

I still tend to do this, because so many Players have already played all the poblished Adventures that they just yawn at me running it normally.



Actually, I argree. I use the rules to better help my Players interact with the game, and I'll limit myself on what I, as the DM, can have the Monsters and Villians do.

I'm not just going to change things "on the fly" to make things more complicated or difficult for the Party.

Neither side should be trying to Break the Game.
obviously the DM shouldn't change thing for the sake of trying to F over the players. Its Why I don't use critical failure for ablity checks just seems unfair.

[Great Dragon]

obviously the DM shouldn't change thing for the sake of trying to F over the players. Its Why I don't use critical failure for ablity checks just seems unfair.

I don't do critical fail on ability/skill checks.
Just Attack and save. Because Players really love to see the BBEG go down because they rolled a 1!!!

[JNAProductions]

I don't do critical fail on ability/skill checks.
Just Attack and save. Because Players really love to see the BBEG go down because they rolled a 1!!!

To which I ask: Why is it needed? Why does your BBEG have such insanely good saves that they wouldn't fail on a 1?

The only kind of saves I can think where that might occur without your BBEG being insanely overpowered (at least in saves) is Concentration saves and weak poisons they bought. (But considering how many things are immune to poison, that's a bad investment anyway.)

[MeeposFire]

Just as an aside in 3e you do not need a rogue to disable traps or even the numerous class's such as the factotum. All you need is trapfinding and anyone could get that by investing 2 feats (shape soul meld and open chakra I think it was hands both from Magic of Incarnum).

As for trying to keep rogues as being the only (or one of the very few) classes to be able to disable traps and open locks I think that is a big mistake. When the first thief class came out (as I recall in Greyhawk) it was seen by at least some that it hurt the fiction of the game because now that thieves had these abilities that meant that other classes could not do these things such as climbing walls or trying to move quietly. This was a fairly common criticism up into and through 3e where by mid 3.5 they started handing out the trapfinding ability like candy because they realized that tying a potentially party important ability to one class was not a good idea. Think about the other classic party necessities and you find none of them are tied to exactly one class by the time 3e was out (and really this was true as far back as 1st edition). Primary weapon combatant had many options (fighter, paladin, barbarian etc), healer (cleric and druid at a very basic level but there are others), and spellcasters (wizard is the gold standard but many other classes can bring the role to the table).

Still if you look in total in 5e the rogue is the best on the whole at using ability checks. Bards come close in that they have an ability in jack of all trades which allows them to have more of a small broadly used bonus plus they have spells but the rogue is much more focused and better at ensuring success on a particular check. They also tend to get abilities that improve their action economy or range of their abilities at using certain skills (think the thief and arcane trickster sub classes).

[Great Dragon]

@JNA
Yeah, I just did the math, and even a maxed 20th lv PC proficient in the save can still fail that DC 15 ten percent of the time.


factotum.
Funny you should mention that class.
I had not even heard of it until a couple of weeks ago. Mostly because it was in a supplement book that I never got, and no one ever played one around me.

I Iooked it up, found the concept to be interesting, and decided to try and convert it to 5e. The Thread is in Homebrew, if you're interested in checking out my Idea for it.
----
I don't have any Exp with Incarnum.
No one was interested in playing it, and so did not feel that buying the book was a good investment.
-----
I also got The Tome of Swords, but no players. Converting those Classes to 5e would be interesting.
-----
Thank you, everyone for posting.
This really has helped me.

I wish I had a group of RPG Nerds/Geeks to hang with. Anyone near the Portland, Oregon area that wants to hang or play, check Finding Players - Recruitment: DM Registration and OoC for contact info.

If this thread can continue, great - I love chatting about RPGs.
And, I got lots of Time on my hands, these days.

[Pex]

Another thing is that a lot of Players don't want to RP. HOW they disable a trap, or identify that poisonous mushroom.
They just want to make a Roll, get a Pass/Fail result and move on.

But, at least to me, D&D is both.
Describe what the PC is doing, and make a Roll. Only then do I describe what happened.

Not necessarily don't want to but don't know how to. They don't know the intricacies on how a traps works to describe it. Also, me being my stereotypical cynical self for a moment, there's the small risk of gotcha DMing where the player does describe what he does but because he didn't say specific words he autofails and springs the trap, and it's not always the case the DM is being a big bad meany, just setting it up as a puzzle.

You're right in that it is both. The DM can teach the player who doesn't know by letting him just roll first then describe the success (or failure) for the player to witness the mechanism. Maybe eventually the player will start to describe his actions, but the DM still shouldn't punish him for not saying the magic words in the DM's head. The player rolls and when a success tells the player he was trying his idea but noticed in time it wouldn't work because of X so the character did Y instead but still good thinking.

[Great Dragon]

Maybe eventually the player will start to describe his actions, but the DM still shouldn't punish him for not saying the magic words in the DM's head. The player rolls and when a success tells the player he was trying his idea but noticed in time it wouldn't work because of X so the character did Y instead but still good thinking.

Yeah, I also hate Gygax-ian (only one answer is right, all others fail) gotchas.

Especially if I rolled high enough for the PC to succeed, but didn't describe how I did it exactly correct.

[Misterwhisper]

Yeah, I also hate Gygax-ian (only one answer is right, all others fail) gotchas.

Especially if I rolled high enough for the PC to succeed, but didn't describe how I did it exactly correct.

Sorry for the sidetrack but this reminds me of why I quit a gaming group I was in for 19 years.

I was playing a rogue, level 13, built to be super skill monkey.

I did not have expertise in thieves tools but I did have a 22 dex thanks to getting a manual.

Total bonus on thieves tools of 11, so with reliable talent a minimum roll of 21.

While sneaking into an encampment we come to a locked door.

DM: the door is locked.
Me: ok, I take out my thieves tools pick the lock.
DM: how do you unlock it?
Me: well how is it locked?
DM: the lock is on the other side of the door.
Me: so, what difference does it make?
DM: you can’t unlock a door if the lock is on the other side?
Me: so let me get this straight, I am trained in thieves tools, I have a dex higher than any normal adventurer can have and I can’t roll under a 10 but I can’t even roll just because the lock is on the other side of a door?
What is the point the training if anytime you don’t want me to open something you just put the lock on the other side.

Wizard: fine, hold on, I cast unseen servant and have it go under and open the door.

DM: ok, cool.

Me: wait, so the wizard throws a level 1 spell at it and fine no problem just auto win, but no chance on a skill check no matter what?
DM: yeah, he spent a resource for it all you did was have a class ability. You can’t succeed at something just because you have a skill when you didn’t spend anything.

Friends for 20 years and that was the last straw, walked away and have not spoken to them for 3 years.

[JoeJ]

Sorry for the sidetrack but this reminds me of why I quit a gaming group I was in for 19 years.

I was playing a rogue, level 13, built to be super skill monkey.

I did not have expertise in thieves tools but I did have a 22 dex thanks to getting a manual.

Total bonus on thieves tools of 11, so with reliable talent a minimum roll of 21.

While sneaking into an encampment we come to a locked door.

DM: the door is locked.
Me: ok, I take out my thieves tools pick the lock.
DM: how do you unlock it?
Me: well how is it locked?
DM: the lock is on the other side of the door.
Me: so, what difference does it make?
DM: you can’t unlock a door if the lock is on the other side?
Me: so let me get this straight, I am trained in thieves tools, I have a dex higher than any normal adventurer can have and I can’t roll under a 10 but I can’t even roll just because the lock is on the other side of a door?
What is the point the training if anytime you don’t want me to open something you just put the lock on the other side.

Wizard: fine, hold on, I cast unseen servant and have it go under and open the door.

DM: ok, cool.

Me: wait, so the wizard throws a level 1 spell at it and fine no problem just auto win, but no chance on a skill check no matter what?
DM: yeah, he spent a resource for it all you did was have a class ability. You can’t succeed at something just because you have a skill when you didn’t spend anything.

Friends for 20 years and that was the last straw, walked away and have not spoken to them for 3 years.

That reaction seems a little extreme for one single lock that, logically, you shouldn't have been able to pick regardless of your skill because you didn't have access to it. Now if locks were always on the other side of the door from you, that would be more of a cause to be angry, but just one doesn't seem like it should have been a problem.

[Rukelnikov]

Sorry for the sidetrack but this reminds me of why I quit a gaming group I was in for 19 years.

I was playing a rogue, level 13, built to be super skill monkey.

I did not have expertise in thieves tools but I did have a 22 dex thanks to getting a manual.

Total bonus on thieves tools of 11, so with reliable talent a minimum roll of 21.

While sneaking into an encampment we come to a locked door.

DM: the door is locked.
Me: ok, I take out my thieves tools pick the lock.
DM: how do you unlock it?
Me: well how is it locked?
DM: the lock is on the other side of the door.
Me: so, what difference does it make?
DM: you can’t unlock a door if the lock is on the other side?
Me: so let me get this straight, I am trained in thieves tools, I have a dex higher than any normal adventurer can have and I can’t roll under a 10 but I can’t even roll just because the lock is on the other side of a door?
What is the point the training if anytime you don’t want me to open something you just put the lock on the other side.

Wizard: fine, hold on, I cast unseen servant and have it go under and open the door.

DM: ok, cool.

Me: wait, so the wizard throws a level 1 spell at it and fine no problem just auto win, but no chance on a skill check no matter what?
DM: yeah, he spent a resource for it all you did was have a class ability. You can’t succeed at something just because you have a skill when you didn’t spend anything.

Friends for 20 years and that was the last straw, walked away and have not spoken to them for 3 years.

Question: How do you picture the rogue picking the lock?

[Great Dragon]

Me: wait, so the wizard throws a level 1 spell at it and fine no problem just auto win, but no chance on a skill check no matter what?
DM: yeah, he spent a resource for it all you did was have a class ability. You can’t succeed at something just because you have a skill when you didn’t spend anything.
Nice story.

Ok. This is kind of a DM ### move.
The PC having the ability is the resource cost.

Allowing the spellcaster to solve the problem with a 1st lv spell that an 11th level Expert can't.
Even if I allowed the Servant to go under the door, it would not be able to unlock the door.

First, the caster had to see what is to be interacted with by the Servant.

Second, the Servant has no Skill abilities, it can only move/lift objects.

It would have been better (and made more sense) if the Wizard had cast Knock.

[JNAProductions]

Question: How do you picture the rogue picking the lock?

How do you open the lock from that side at all? Presumably, there's a mechanism for a key to be used-that's where you pick it.

[Great Dragon]

How do you open the lock from that side at all? Presumably, there's a mechanism for a key to be used-that's where you pick it.

Or at least some kind of Hidden button or lever - That can be found.

[Rukelnikov]

How do you open the lock from that side at all? Presumably, there's a mechanism for a key to be used-that's where you pick it.

Or maybe there isn't and the door is meant to only be opened from the other side, like in a cell of some kind?

[JNAProductions]

Or maybe there isn't and the door is meant to only be opened from the other side, like in a cell of some kind?

Then why have a lock at all? A simple bar works just as well-the main point of a lock is that it can be opened from either side.

[Great Dragon]

Or maybe there isn't and the door is meant to only be opened from the other side, like in a cell of some kind?

If this is the case, how the ** did the PCs end up in it? There should still be some kind of way to get out....

[Rukelnikov]

Then why have a lock at all? A simple bar works just as well-the main point of a lock is that it can be opened from either side.

How would I know? But I can imagine scenarios, an extravagant villain? A group of sprites that aren't strong enough to use a bar to trap something huge (from their PoV)? A room that wasn't originally a cell was turned into one so they melted the keyhole and took the handle away?


If this is the case, how the ** did the PCs end up in it? There should still be some kind of way to get out....

Again IDK, but there can be many reasons, PCs were charmed/suggested/etc, they didn't know it was a trap and got the door closed on them as they looted the room, it was the bottom of a pit they were thrown into

Unless Misterwhisper comments on it, I'm afraid I can't answer any of your questions, but I can definitely picture it happening one way or another.

[Great Dragon]

How would I know? But I can imagine scenarios, an extravagant villain? A group of sprites that aren't strong enough to use a bar to trap something huge (from their PoV)? A room that wasn't originally a cell was turned into one so they melted the keyhole and took the handle away?

Again IDK, but there can be many reasons, PCs were charmed/suggested/etc, they didn't know it was a trap and got the door closed on them as they looted the room, it was the bottom of a pit they were thrown into

Unless Misterwhisper comments on it, I'm afraid I can't answer any of your questions, but I can definitely picture it happening one way or another.

Sure, I can picture ways for it to happen, but if I don't include some means of getting out - short of DMPC introduction - then that might be the end of the Adventure. The PCs die of starvation or thirst for some other Party to find ....

[Chronos]

You jimmy the locking bolt, like with a credit card. That works no matter which side the keyhole is on.

[Rukelnikov]

Sure, I can picture ways for it to happen, but if I don't include some means of getting out - short of DMPC introduction - then that might be the end of the Adventure. The PCs die of starvation or thirst for some other Party to find ....

They were lvl 13 and had a wizard, at the very least he should be able to teleport them out of there.

We don't really know the situtation or party comp besides those two, maybe a barb could rage and break the door? As I said before, with what we know for now, I don't see how a single unpickable (from only 1 side) door is such a strange thing.

[Great Dragon]

You jimmy the locking bolt, like with a credit card. That works no matter which side the keyhole is on.

LoL - nice!

[Rukelnikov]

You jimmy the locking bolt, like with a credit card. That works no matter which side the keyhole is on.

I'm personally not thinking "modern day like locks". I picture something more like this:

https://idighardware.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Locks-4-682x1024.jpg

[Great Dragon]

Those are indeed the type of locks found in most Fantasy Games.

Ok. Maybe the DM was trying to get some spotlight time for the other players?
This happening once should not kill a Longtime friendship.

But, like was stated, we don't know all the details.

[Misterwhisper]

Those are indeed the type of locks found in most Fantasy Games.

Ok. Maybe the DM was trying to get some spotlight time for the other players?
This happening once should not kill a Longtime friendship. But, we don't know all the details.

We were not locked in a cell or anything, we were outside a building essentially sneaking through the back door.

Rest of the party was a bear totem barbearian and a vengeance paladin.

I was a swashbuckler rogue and the wizard was an evoked.

My issue is when dms make mundane classes break out schematics and use real life research, but any caster just Magic’s their way through no problem.

It was not this one incident it was a long string of issues of being the only non stoner in a gaming group with multiple people with jerk dm syndrome but worship at the feet of feet of casters due to playing 3.0 and 3.5 too long.

[Great Dragon]

My issue is when dms make mundane classes break out schematics and use real life research, but any caster just Magic’s their way through no problem.

It was not this one incident it was a long string of issues of being the only non stoner in a gaming group with multiple people with jerk dm syndrome but worship at the feet of feet of casters due to playing 3.0 and 3.5 too long.

Aha. I had the opposite exp - where the DM hated Mages.....

[Max_Killjoy]

Just on the aside of explaining the lock setup, not justifying the DM's overall approach.

If it's the back door to a building, then the lock is on the inside because the owner doesn't want anyone using the door from the outside at all, and only those who have a key using it from the inside. Simple as that.

[Rukelnikov]

We were not locked in a cell or anything, we were outside a building essentially sneaking through the back door.

Rest of the party was a bear totem barbearian and a vengeance paladin.

I was a swashbuckler rogue and the wizard was an evoked.

My issue is when dms make mundane classes break out schematics and use real life research, but any caster just Magic’s their way through no problem.

It was not this one incident it was a long string of issues of being the only non stoner in a gaming group with multiple people with jerk dm syndrome but worship at the feet of feet of casters due to playing 3.0 and 3.5 too long.

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be an explanation then, if he did it just to mess with you he's a douche, or maybe he thought "it would be funny" since he was high

EDIT:


Just on the aside of explaining the lock setup, not justifying the DM's overall approach.

If it's the back door to a building, then the lock is on the inside because the owner doesn't want anyone using the door from the outside at all, and only those who have a key using it from the inside. Simple as that.

this makes sense too.

[Aussiehams]

We were not locked in a cell or anything, we were outside a building essentially sneaking through the back door.

Rest of the party was a bear totem barbearian and a vengeance paladin.

I was a swashbuckler rogue and the wizard was an evoked.

My issue is when dms make mundane classes break out schematics and use real life research, but any caster just Magic’s their way through no problem.

It was not this one incident it was a long string of issues of being the only non stoner in a gaming group with multiple people with jerk dm syndrome but worship at the feet of feet of casters due to playing 3.0 and 3.5 too long.

What a missed opportunity for teamwork and making you both feel needed. Make the door barred and locked. Rogue unlocks the door but can't open it because its barred, so the US lifts the bar, then the Pally and Barb charge through. Everyone gets a go at being important.

[Great Dragon]

What a missed opportunity for teamwork and making you both feel needed. Make the door barred and locked. Rogue unlocks the door but can't open it because its barred, so the US lifts the bar, then the Pally and Barb charge through. Everyone gets a go at being important.

Oh - Yeah. (Crash! LoL)
Or, even if the DM said the Servant couldn't because the Wizard needs to see the Bar to lift it
= Mage Hand. Or if the Wiz wants to make sure - or show off = Bibgy's Hand!!
Or the Wiz casting Passwall next to the door. (They took away Phase Door in 5e)
Teleporting is an option, but too much of a risk, IMO.

Or - if the BBEG was paranoid of being locked out of his own place
- or had trusted minions that needed access = use the Hidden Button/Lever Idea.
That the Rogue can still find.

DM actually letting the PCs of the Party come up with their own solution?
What a novel idea!:smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

Just on the aside of explaining the lock setup, not justifying the DM's overall approach.

If it's the back door to a building, then the lock is on the inside because the owner doesn't want anyone using the door from the outside at all, and only those who have a key using it from the inside. Simple as that.

If it was a secrete door, it'd be logical, but regular backdoors are used both ways, so it'd be pretty impractical to have one that you can't enter from it.

[Max_Killjoy]

If it was a secrete door, it'd be logical, but regular backdoors are used both ways, so it'd be pretty impractical to have one that you can't enter from it.

Depends on the owner and the rest of the setup, maybe there's a security concern, maybe something else. I've seen setups like that in modern buildings.

[Great Dragon]

Depends on the owner and the rest of the setup, maybe there's a security concern, maybe something else. I've seen setups like that in modern buildings.

True. Even a lot of of Towers/Keeps/Castles did focus traffic through a Front Gate,
and all other doors (Portcullis?) were meant as Emergency Exits.
Which means that the Locked on the Inside Door is more plausible.

However- that means that the Challenge was put in place from the start.
But it sounds like this DM just decided to have the Inside Locked Door on the spur of the moment.
Because only Spellcasters (read usually Mages) were really respected by them and the Group.

[Max_Killjoy]

True. Even a lot of of Towers/Keeps/Castles did focus traffic through a Front Gate,
and all other doors (Portcullis?) were meant as Emergency Exits.
Which means that the Locked on the Inside Door is more plausible.

However- that means that the Challenge was put in place from the start.
But it sounds like this DM just decided to have the Inside Locked Door on the spur of the moment.
Because only Spellcasters (read usually Mages) were really respected by them and the Group.

Two separate questions, for sure, and as I noted I'm not defending the DM's approach to that situation, just side-commenting that the setup isn't ridiculous from a pure plausibility standing.

If it were on a map that way from the start, I'd be fine with it.

If the DM made it up on the fly, motivated by squelching the Rogue's ability out of some misguided notion about "earned abilities", then I'd object fully.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Two separate questions, for sure, and as I noted I'm not defending the DM's approach to that situation, just side-commenting that the setup isn't ridiculous from a pure plausibility standing.

If it were on a map that way from the start, I'd be fine with it.

If the DM made it up on the fly, motivated by squelching the Rogue's ability out of some misguided notion about "earned abilities", then I'd object fully.

Same. I've seen quite a few of those one-way doors. We've got quite a few here at the school I work for. They've got a push-bar on the inside, but the outside doesn't even have a lock.

But a DM doing that (or anything) on the fly just to "balance" a character who "succeeds too much" is just asinine and bad practice.

[Great Dragon]

as I noted I'm not defending the DM's approach to that situation, just side-commenting that the setup isn't ridiculous from a pure plausibility standing.

Opps. I was also trying to do this, posting things that I - as a DM - would most likely do.

I'd also scale the Challenge to the Party's Level.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Just on the aside of explaining the lock setup, not justifying the DM's overall approach.

If it's the back door to a building, then the lock is on the inside because the owner doesn't want anyone using the door from the outside at all, and only those who have a key using it from the inside. Simple as that.

Even assuming a DM operating in good faith, I don't think that's enough of a reason to say "you can't roll at all". I can justify disadvantage, or a higher DC, but no more. Lockpicking isn't the only way a Rogue can open a door. I understand that for most people, Rogues are supposed to do it subtly and cleverly, like solving a puzzle. If you wanted brute force you'd make room for the Barbarian with the big axe, right? And I get it, lockpicking is iconic. But there are other ways.

Take Jack Sheppard, who was hanged for theft in 1724 and sensationally escaped four times from prison. The fourth time he got caught he was chained with extra care
https://simanaitissays.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/440px-jack_sheppard.gif
but he managed to pick his own manacles and free his hands, and proceeded to open 6 barred prison doors in succession before bolting. He was 22 years old, small of stature, and not particularly muscular. He didn't roll a Strength check to force open these barred doors, he used improvised Thieves' Tools (a small jemmy he'd smuggled in).

So since that actually happened, and D&D often emulates things that can't happen at all, I personally have no problem with invoking Rule of Cool, and not bothering to explain how exactly your Rogue opened a door that's bolted or barred from the other side. Say "I do it like Jack Sheppard did it, may that handsome bastard rest in peace!", roll your skill check and get done with it. It doesn't break my suspension of disbelief.

Because lockpicking is only one of the MANY methdos of breaking and entering, and "thieves' tools" (in D&D and real life) aren't just lockpicks. They can be:


picks, hammers (early descriptions of burglaries, from Rome to Baghdad, mostly involve digging tunnels and breaking walls)
skeleton keys (warded locks, the most common type of lock before the modern pin tumbler aka Yale lock came into the picture, are hilariously vulnerable to skeleton keys: you try a bunch of them, and one will fit sooner or later; they were called "pick-lock keys" at first, then just "pick-locks", and later in Victorian slang "betties"; not be confused with modern lockpicks)
crowbars, jemmies, chisels (it's called "breaking and entering" for a reason: forcing a door open was VERY common, second only to slipping in unnoticed from an unlocked door or window; padlocks can also be forced open with such a tool very very quickly)
"lockpicks" (generic term for various hooked iron bars with which you can jimmy several types of locks and padlocks; a jemmy can serve as an improvised lockpick)
string, wire (I speculate that you can open a spring padlock if you insert a loop in the lock, direct it around the spring and pull, though I have no evidence if this method was historically used)
rope (bars in windows could be bent with rope and a stick: you tied the rope between two bars and placed a stick in the middle; then you twisted the stick round and round, the rope basically contracted and pulled both bars until they bent or got dislodged)
auger, awl, brace and centrebit (by the Victorian era, serious burglars carried carpenters' tools and straight up cut holes in wooden doors; they also cut glass panes, instead of breaking them like their more amateur colleagues)
modern lockpicks (tension wrench plus small hooks and rakes: the iconic tools everyone has in mind when they think of thieves' tools; they are for the modern Yale lock - the first lock in common use that's actually a puzzle to solve rather a thing to force open - and they are mostly worthless vs older, more era-appropriate locks)

Long story short, if you can't pick a lock for whatever reason, you can still force a door open with the proper tools (no super strength required - I'd approximate it as a Dexterity or Intelligence-based check), and in some cases you can even do it quietly. Subtlety may be iconic in D&D, but it's not a prerequisite, and historically it's not at all prevalent - thieves and burglars used brute force way more often. So for the most part, the absence of a lock shouldn't automatically preclude a Thieves' Tools check, though I can imagine cases where it wouldn't make sense. For example, the Saga of Vox Machina Vs the Barred Door was hilarious.

DM: There's no lock, actually.
ROGUE: There's no lock? Oh, but I rolled a natural 20. Does that help?
GUNSLINGER: Suddenly, a lock appears! Utterly pickable!

[Great Dragon]

@HeadlessMermaid
Wow. Thanks for the History!

I'm totally stealing that list for my next Expert Dungeon Delving Thief!!:nale:

It is true that most of the time I can be just as guilty of being lazy at RP as any player
and just call for a Roll. Sure, if the Player wants to RP it, I'll let them (and not hold poor descriptions against them - It's not like I'm an Expert at these things IRL), but I don't want to bog the game down with minutia. I liked the "Roll to Step/Jump Over Log" example.

And if I feel that the Challenge is high enough, I'll do as you said, and either Raise the DC, impose Disadvantage - or (rarely) both.

Once in a while I'll be in the mood, and ask how the Character (3x and older = Rogue) does it.
But, I'll also ask the other Characters how they do their Class's "special ability"
- Like Matt Mercer.:smallcool:
And if they are unsure - or a New Player - I'll offer as many options as I can think of.

Very Rule of Cool, as much as possible. The Rules serve the DM/Players, not the reverse.
Which is something I like very much in 5e.

Now, there are times that I do have to DM off the Fly, mostly because two or three People happened to get together and asked me to DM. Since it was a Spur of the Moment thing, I'm not as likely to have my Gaming Bag with me for ease of pre-created material, and I have to make stuff up as the Game plays out.

But, even then, I let the other Players know that this is what I'm doing, at the start of the session.
And if we don't kill the entire day with Character Creation.

So, yes - I might make the Locked on the Inside Door event happen, to give the Rogue more of a Challenge and perhaps give the other Classes a chance to Solve the Puzzle.

But, then I'll also do a lot of the things that I posted - plus perhaps more ideas as Friendly People suggest them in the posts.
I'll also answer OoC Questions about why that door might be locked on the Inside, even if I just did it to challenge the Maxed-out Expert Dungeon Delving Rogue/Thief - I'll use the "The BBEG did it to give him an Emergency Exit, and they planned it so that only they - and maybe a few chosen Minions - use it." Excuse.

------
But then I also love RP-ing the Villian's surprise when the Heroes do get in.....

Villain: "And now, Princess, I'm going to sacrifice you to the Demon/Devil/Evil God for even more Power!"

Paladin: "Halt, Villain!"

Villian looks up and sees the Hero Party swarming into the Chamber.
"How the H%# did you get in?!!"

Rogue: "Oh, it was easy. Combining my skills and the Mage's Magic, we got in through your Secret Exit easily."

Villain: "I...... had not thought of that...... Curse you!"
Villain glares at minions: "Don't just stand there - GET THEM!!!"

Roll Initiative!!