D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Rogue Scout

[gyor]

I genuinely have no idea why you care about thieves cant. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, will care if you ignore it being on your character sheet. It's almost entirely fluff in nature. Just ignore it. It's not even a house rule.

Your basically arguing with Sheldon Cooper.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Man, this conversation is going down the 'Do Female Dwarves Have Beards?'-rabbit-hole at full speed.

Don't expect a game to enforce at-table behavior, for starters.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I genuinely have no idea why you care about thieves cant. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, will care if you ignore it being on your character sheet. It's almost entirely fluff in nature. Just ignore it. It's not even a house rule.

My suspicion is that it's the only straw he can cling to in order to claim an actual, objective "flaw" in the design, as opposed to the entirely subjective and thus completely valid criticism that it's not the design he was hoping for.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

My suspicion is that it's the only straw he can cling to in order to claim an actual, objective "flaw" in the design, as opposed to the entirely subjective and thus completely valid criticism that it's not the design he was hoping for.

What it comes down to is that you don't think its a problem. I do. I find abilities that put pressure on the narrative to incorporate them annoying. If it doesn't bother you, whatever.

I'm more arguing against everyone who claims my opinion invalid because Thieves Cant is easy to work around. Yes it is, but it's another thing to add to my house rules doc, which I present to new players. Every line added makes it increasing intimidating to new players. I would therefore prefer to be able to stick with the RAW as much as possible for that reason.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What it comes down to is that you don't think its a problem. I do. I find abilities that put pressure on the narrative to incorporate them annoying. If it doesn't bother you, whatever.

Then why don't all the other places this crops up bother you? I proposed one earlier, but we could easily come up with 100 character concepts that, when implemented using the available classes/subclasses, would have these sorts of anomalies. Why does this one bother you so much? Is it just that this is the one character concept that's most important to you?

Or maybe they do bother you, in which case I refer to my previous post that D&D is simply not an a la carte game.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Then why don't all the other places this crops up bother you? I proposed one earlier, but we could easily come up with 100 character concepts that, when implemented using the available classes/subclasses, would have these sorts of anomalies. Why does this one bother you so much? Is it just that this is the one character concept that's most important to you?

Or maybe they do bother you, in which case I refer to my previous post that D&D is simply not an a la carte game.

No this isn't the only thing that bothers me. I have similar issues with dragon sorcerers (if you don't want to randomly explode and create magical butterflies on mistake, you instead get a face full of scales!) and storm sorcerers (cast comprehend languages -> fly 10 ft.). I'd also like a pre-made table of possible terms and conditions for creating warlock pacts, but so far my players have done a fine job coming up with their own.

Maybe the reason this one bothers me so much is that wilderness rogue = non-spellcasting ranger && ranger = loner or outsider. Banding with a gang of local thieves (because otherwise the ability is useless) == not a loner/outsider. The non-spellcaster loner ranger, who is an expert in woodcraft, is an iconic archetype and should be easily created without optional rules (such as feats).

 

[Satyrn]

*Note to Mike Mearls: I'm still waiting for my pony.

But it's already in the Monster Manual

 

[Satyrn]

Man, this conversation is going down the 'Do Female Dwarves Have Beards?'-rabbit-hole at full speed.

Don't expect a game to enforce at-table behavior, for starters.

There are no female dogs dwarves. Just as there are no male cats elves.

 

[Mistwell]

What it comes down to is that you don't think its a problem. I do. I find abilities that put pressure on the narrative to incorporate them annoying. If it doesn't bother you, whatever.

I'm more arguing against everyone who claims my opinion invalid because Thieves Cant is easy to work around. Yes it is, but it's another thing to add to my house rules doc, which I present to new players. Every line added makes it increasing intimidating to new players. I would therefore prefer to be able to stick with the RAW as much as possible for that reason.

How is it a house rule to ignore it on your character sheet? You don't need any rule to do that. It's not altering anything meaningful to ignore it on your character sheet. I forget stuff on my character sheet all the time and nobody has ever tried to claim I was creating a house rule by ignoring something on my character sheet. No new player will be intimidated by ignoring thieves cant on their character sheet - honest to God they will likely forget it exists anyway (most people seem to). It's not an alteration to the rules as written to just forget about something on your character sheet. No balance issues will come into play if you ignore it.

I mean, we're talking about something which realistically is almost on the level of having red hair on your character sheet and then when asked you just say brown hair all the time. You know how many people would care that you do that? None.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The non-spellcaster loner ranger, who is an expert in woodcraft, is an iconic archetype and should be easily created without optional rules (such as feats).

It is?

From where?

Aragorn: part of a community of secretive woodmen, considered shifty by the authorities
Robin Hood: part of a community of secretive woodmen, considered shifty by the authorities
Drizz't: one-dimensional superhero for 12 year olds who should die in a car fire

Who is this "icon" to whom you refer?