D&D 5E Want a better Rogue? Build a Wizard. Or why play a Rogue?

[Son of the Serpent]

I think the wording is unclear on whether that is possible or not. For instance "where you cast the spell"...is that where you are (and if so, what does that mean) or the location of the object/target/center of the Glyph?

But that is just one of several things that are unclear about this trick (and your workaround), AFAICT.

... its unspecified what exactly is required for Somatic components. A BoH opening is only 2ft in diameter. Does that constrain the Somatic Component?

...the interdimensional space inside a BoH is odd. Its geometry is undefined. So can objects inside even interact with each other? If not, how do lifeforms inside it breath (as specified in the description)?

...you must be holding the Material components (and the object) while casting. But if you insert an item into a BoH it goes into the interdimensional space awaiting retrieval. i.e. Is it even possible to "hold" an item in the weird space inside?

...your hands are part of you, and the description doesn't talk about the BoH like something can be sticking partway out of it. Its either in or out. So...it may not even be possible for you to stick your hands in without entering the bag entirely. Not a hindrance for casting AFAICT, but you need someone to pull you out.

But most importantly...
...what precisely differentiates an "object that can be closed" from a "surface"? Just about any object I can think of (closeable or not) has a surface. So...If I declare that I'm casting it on the surface of the book rather than the book itself, the object and movement restrictions don't apply? (The spell even gives the example of a table as a surface...to which someone on the interwebs suggested ripping the legs off and having the muscle carry it around.) If I declare that I'm scribing the glyph on the surface of this piece of paper, can I fold it into a paper airplane and use it as a missile? If so, then all the shenanigans with the BoH are pointless, because the trigger conditions are totally open: "When I have thrown this acorn and it strikes a creature." seems perfectly legit to me, so long as you specify that you are casting it on the surface of the acorn.

All in all, this is a DM call, either way, IMO. Certainly the relevant wordings allow for multiple interpretations.

Play however you see fit, I guess.

The paper airplane wont work. The glyph cant move that far.

My glyph is on a pebble.

An arrow is involved in the trigger.

Each pebble is keyed to an arrow and thebwording i use actually has more detail to make this work without bending the rules.

But thats muh secret sawce. Muh proprietary blaend.

The key is word play though and i actually believe this spell is INTENDED to encourage and reward that. They do after all dangle that tantelizing clause in the spell description about unusual triggers.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I've long thought that rogues were overrated.

The class, seems weak in theory. In flat planes of perfectly smooth 5’ squares, with no features, and monsters that ‘spawn’ always in melee range, then yes that ‘terrain* does not help the class to shine.

while everyone else in the party is doing cool tricks like wildshaping into bears, calling lightning, exploding fireballs, and raising the dead, you get to disengage and metagame over board position.

CleverNickName, I don’t mean this rudely at all, but you are missing the*point* of the class.

The archetype, the rogue represents is the person that succeeds through their wits.

Wildshaping, casting high level spells, etc that is cheating to a skilled, clever person.
A Rogue is the type of character that says “*I*beat you!”to their opponents.
Not their magic, or their god, or their rage, but them through grit, cunning, clever planning, and having the right tools.

I find magic, too appealing myself, so I have never played the class. Playing alongside one, has made me envious of Rogues at times. Yet, it is better to enable the Rogue then to resent them. As a person that has DM’d for multiple, different Rogue Characters, I learned to respect the class.

IMO, the best argument is that we are now talking about using two 2nd-level spell slots to open a door.

Silence is a Ritual spell, so it might only be a single 2nd level slot. I have never felt a casting of the Silence spell to be a waste.

 

[Mort]

Silence is a Ritual spell, so it might only be a single 2nd level slot. I have never felt a casting of the Silence spell to be a waste.

Silence can be cast as a ritual sure, but now you're looking at a timeframe of over 10 minutes. That's a long time to commit to a locked door in most adventure scenarios. It's certainly not optimal.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The class, seems weak in theory. In flat planes of perfectly smooth 5’ squares, with no features, and monsters that ‘spawn’ always in melee range, then yes that ‘terrain* does not help the class to shine.

CleverNickName, I don’t mean this rudely at all, but you are missing the*point* of the class.

The archetype, the rogue represents is the person that succeeds through their wits.

Wildshaping, casting high level spells, etc that is cheating to a skilled, clever person.
A Rogue is the type of character that says “*I*beat you!”to their opponents.
Not their magic, or their god, or their rage, but them through grit, cunning, clever planning, and having the right tools.

I find magic, to appealing myself, so I have never played the class. Playing alongside one, has made me envious of Rogues at times. Yet, it is better to enable the Rogue then to resent them. As a person that has DM’d for multiple, different Rogue Characters, I learned to respect the class.


Silence is a Ritual spell, so it might only be a single 2nd level slot. I have never felt a casting of the Silence spell to be a waste.

Nah.

Rogues wit is about on par with that of wiz and bard. A lazy wiz ord bard doesnt us wits to win that often but one played properly is just as much about intelligence and wit as a rogue. Proper use of spells is often ingenious with the WAY the spell was used often being more important than damage output. You can and often will use spells (or other related skills) creatively rather than maximally (high dps). Granted this is still reduced in 5e due to the way skills are built.

Bard and wizard still rely on witty tactics and strategy though. Yes. Very much.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Rogues wit is about on par with that of wiz and bard.

I think you are missing my point. Most of the clever, non magical heroes from myth and history fall under being often a good fit for the Rogue class...thematically.

Every class when played with cleverness and vim, is going to perform better than the exact same character played less optimally.

A person that wanted to play a learned, non magical librarian, that learned a forgotten secret and is now on the run from groups wanting to learn the secret....the Rogue class can model that.

Want to play John Wick...Rogue Class.

 

[Todd Roybark]

One tactic that has not been described is in groups with wizards and rogues, the tiny Familiar, in the pocket trick, allows for an ‘open Channel’ between the rogue and wizard.

The trick is also useful to realize what is happening when the scouting character gets paralyzed by ghouls, which by the RAI, should happen at least a Once, in a campaign.
It is the audio/visual link from Aliens.

We, sometimes will layer a Dragon’s Breath on the Familiar, if we think there is some nastiness lurking ahead.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I think you are missing my point. Most of the clever, non magical heroes from myth and history fall under being often a good fit for the Rogue class...thematically.

Every class when played with cleverness and vim, is going to perform better than the exact same character played less optimally.

A person that wanted to play a learned, non magical librarian, that learned a forgotten secret and is now on the run from groups wanting to learn the secret....the Rogue class can model that.

Want to play John Wick...Rogue Class.

Im not missing any points.

Also, most of nearly any kind of hero is non magical. In MOST cultures' myths magic is a rare thing few have. Not just witty heros.

You're thinking of this all wrong headed. A minority of wily heros have magic because magic is rare Is Rare IS RARE. If anything the smarter the variant of the hero archetype you are talking about the more frequently and more prolifically you see them BE weilders of magic. Magic is rare for everyone. Wily heros too. But less rare for the wily ones. Because its directly something most ancient people associate with being cunniving smart and wily. Also simply learned.

You sir are opposite of correct.

Thematically rogues and magic users essentially are two expressions of the smartest heros which far more often than not are NOT a clearly seperated archetype.

I dont know why you called on mythology. It by and large does not agree.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This has really turned into a stupid pissing match.

Really this is the answer:

Yet, it is better to enable the Rogue then (sic) to resent them.

D&D is a game of teamwork.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

This has really turned into a stupid pissing match.

Really this is the answer:



D&D is a game of teamwork.

I actually play and enjoy rogues. I do not resent them.

But i find this whole conversation to be a dubious mess.

Basically it boils down to favoritism at this point.

Including the thematic thing. If you actually read some myths youll find that magic is a direct thematic indicator of the exact things he was sayibg are basically "a rogue thing moreso than a wizard or bard thing."

Nah. Nope. Historic story telling doesnt agree.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I actually play and enjoy rogues. I do not resent them.

But i find this whole conversation to be a dubious mess.

Basically it boils down to favoritism at this point.

This part I agree with.

Then there's this part....

Including the thematic thing. If you actually read some myths youll find that magic is a direct thematic indicator of the exact things he was sayibg are basically "a rogue thing moreso than a wizard or bard thing."

Nah. Nope. Historic story telling doesnt agree.

And if you actually read some other myths you'll find out something else.

Anybody using the argument that "I'm right because my point of view is more common in mythology" is already wrong. For so many reasons.