(5.24 PBP) Vault Redux (OOC) Fitz's Refresher

[FitzTheRuke]

Proficency with cards gives advantage on checks with cards, right? Or did I read that wrong?

There's some confusion in 2024 - pieces of the rules seem to be written with the idea that the Xanathar's Guide method of tool proficiency giving advantage on skill checks whenever both might apply (IE, you'd get Advantage on Deception checks to bluff while playing cards, if you have card proficiency) is still in effect, whereas other parts of the 2024 rules seem to replace that whole idea with a new system - one that's somewhat half-baked. (For example, the DC it lists for, say, jamming a door with Carpenter's tools is dc20 - but with an iron spike it appears to be an auto-success). Something in the middle of those two seems more appropriate to me.

Meanwhile, the RAW rules listed for Three Dragon Ante (the game being played here) are:

DC 15 WIS check to determine if someone is cheating. DC 20 WIS check to win the game. Presumably if you are proficient in Gaming Set (Three Dragon Ante) then you get to add your Proficiency Bonus to your WIS check.

It's not much, and it's not great. For one, I can't believe that they think that Wisdom best represents the ability most associated with skill at gambling!

For my home games, I pretty much gave up on all that and made all of the tools into another category of skills based on professions. So you'd have "Cartographer", "Tinker" or "Smith". Or in this case, "Gambler" - if you have the corresponding tool proficiency.

SO. For this game? I guess the important question is: What do you want to achieve, and how do you propose to go about achieving it? Can you break it up into three easy-to-grasp steps? I do love a "Three-Check-Challenge". Can you think of three skill-related checks appropriate to your goals?

As an example, I'd imagine Deception, Insight, and Sleight-of-Hand would be the three most appropriate skills to cheat at cards. If you have proficiency it Gaming Set: Three Dragon Ante (I'll accept it if you haven't picked the specific "Gaming Set", but otherwise have the tool proficiency) then, sure, you can apply advantage to those three checks.

Huh. Long way of saying, "Yeah, sure".

 

[FitzTheRuke]

OOC: Sorry my bad, Pact of the chain allows casting find familiar as a magic action without expending a spell slot. The casting just takes a few seconds.

Sure, but it occurs to me that you don't have to cast Find Familiar. You can dismiss her to a pocket dimension as a Magic Action and then return her to a space within 30ft of you as another Magic Action. RAW lists no limit on where she needs to be relative to you when you dismiss her. It'll save you the components.

 

[Steve Gorak]

Sure, but it occurs to me that you don't have to cast Find Familiar. You can dismiss her to a pocket dimension as a Magic Action and then return her to a space within 30ft of you as another Magic Action. RAW lists no limit on where she needs to be relative to you when you dismiss her. It'll save you the components.

Nice! I didn’t think it was possible but l’ll definitely do that . Thanks!

Sg

 

[Hriston]

Proficency with cards gives advantage on checks with cards, right? Or did I read that wrong?

It does if you're also proficient in an associated skill.

 

[Hriston]

SO. For this game? I guess the important question is: What do you want to achieve, and how do you propose to go about achieving it? Can you break it up into three easy-to-grasp steps? I do love a "Three-Check-Challenge". Can you think of three skill-related checks appropriate to your goals?

I think the plan that was stated was to observe the group social dynamic of the players at the table to identify the least liked person (Insight) which both @Neurotic and @Leatherhead have described their characters doing. I'd imagine it would be the lower ranked cultist still remaining at the table, but maybe their actions are still awaiting resolution? After that, I think the plan was to cheat in such a way as to frame that person for cheating (Sleight of Hand + Gaming Set?) and start a squabble amongst them (Deception?).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think the plan that was stated was to observe the group social dynamic of the players at the table to identify the least liked person (Insight) which both @Neurotic and @Leatherhead have described their characters doing. I'd imagine it would be the lower ranked cultist still remaining at the table, but maybe their actions are still awaiting resolution? After that, I think the plan was to cheat in such a way as to frame that person for cheating (Sleight of Hand + Gaming Set?) and start a squabble amongst them (Deception?).

That sounds right to me. Does someone want to post an IC to that effect, or just give me some rolls? (I've been getting my wife to roll for everyone lately when I feel that a roll is "missing" rather than wasting time asking for it and waiting for a reply). I could do that, too and push the scene forward. I'll leave it for a brief spell and see what @Neurotic and @Leatherhead head say.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Lorent turns toward the table
"Passsion is good, you'll need it. But obedience comes first. Go unload the wagon. I'll try my hand the The Dragon. Maybe if I win I will not tell Lord Silakul to put you to kobold duty."

He sits at the table "Hi, I'm Lozant Red-Fang. I was sent here and was to meet one of yours. I found the caravan, but not the fang I expected. Can we play, I can tell you about it while these schmucks unload. But then I'll have to go up and report in. Who's dealing?"

OOC: What portculis? Rolls: with advantage to maintain the disguise 22.insight 17 to see who best to frame for cheating, deception 18 to actually cheat (advantage if someone helps, feel free to roll) Persuasion is at +5 if some diplomacy is needed. Also, I just came from the night out, so coyotecode since it is easier than rolz on the phone. I can reroll in the morning if you want

Guided deception: 2D20.HIGH(1)+5+1D4 = [14, 14]+5+[3] = 22

Insight to see who is least liked: 1D20 = [17] = 17

Deception to cheat at cards: 1D20+5+1D4 = [10]+5+[3] = 18

I don’t know if this post is helpful to that effect. There’s a 17 insight and an 18 deception here.

That sounds right to me. Does someone want to post an IC to that effect, or just give me some rolls? (I've been getting my wife to roll for everyone lately when I feel that a roll is "missing" rather than wasting time asking for it and waiting for a reply). I could do that, too and push the scene forward. I'll leave it for a brief spell and see what @Neurotic and @Leatherhead head say.

 

[Neurotic]

Going out to get some supplies, I'll post my rolls
Insight --> Deception --> Sleight of hand
To find out the probable cheater or most disliked player, to play proficiently and to cheat to advance that player and/or put incriminating evidence of cheating on him

Since we already have the rolls, maybe simply help action to roll with advantage?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don’t know if this post is helpful to that effect. There’s a 17 insight and an 18 deception here.

I took those as for joining the game without giving anything away.

Going out to get some supplies, I'll post my rolls
Insight --> Deception --> Sleight of hand
To find out the probable cheater or most disliked player, to play proficiently and to cheat to advance that player and/or put incriminating evidence of cheating on him

Since we already have the rolls, maybe simply help action to roll with advantage?

Sorry, where do we have the rolls? You didn't seem to post any on my end. Are you posting them to the IC?

 

[Kobold Stew]

There's some confusion in 2024 - pieces of the rules seem to be written with the idea that the Xanathar's Guide method of tool proficiency giving advantage on skill checks whenever both might apply (IE, you'd get Advantage on Deception checks to bluff while playing cards, if you have card proficiency) is still in effect, whereas other parts of the 2024 rules seem to replace that whole idea with a new system - one that's somewhat half-baked. (For example, the DC it lists for, say, jamming a door with Carpenter's tools is dc20 - but with an iron spike it appears to be an auto-success). Something in the middle of those two seems more appropriate to me.

This is not advice, more just a discussion of the problem in the 2024 rules, as I see it.

There is confusion, and in my opinion it all comes down to the description of the Lock in the PHB, which says an ordinary lock: "a creature can use Thieves' Tools to pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check."

Should it say "a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) check"?

• if yes, then problem is solved. Slight of Hand has nothing to do with using Thieves' Tools. It is easily errata'd.
• if no, then we need to ask:

Does it require proficiency in Thieves' Tools?

• if yes, then tool proficiency does not add to Sleight of Hand proficiency, and it's a normal check.
• if no, then the game is expecting nonprificient individuals to carry around thieves' tools, and proficiency would give advantage. And so for a rogue with proficiency in both Slight of Hand and Thieves' Tools, you always get advantage.

Neither of these is an answer.

Is the lock an exception to the general rule? i.e. that ordinarily you roll skill-or-tool, but the lock means you can benefit from both.
* No, that makes no sense.

My instinct is not to allow the stacking of tool and skill for advantage, and to errata the description of the lock. That is the smallest change, iand I think it then removes the confusion Fitz mentioned.