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

[Fenris-77]

The fact that spells are a finite resource makes this whole conversation kinda silly. Sure, a wizard can be a reasonable facsimile of a rogue in a part-time capacity, at the cost of doing what he's actually good at. Or maybe he should just stick to doing what he's good at? Crazy talk, I know. If that wizard was in my party, I'd be all over that silliness - dude, stop farting around opening doors with your mind and get out the friggin lock picks. Don't come crying to me when you take a ogre club in the face because you ran out of juice to cast shield. Sheesh. The next time we're back in town I'm hiring a Hobbit, I swear to Tymora.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The fact that spells are a finite resource makes this whole conversation kinda silly. Sure, a wizard can be a reasonable facsimile of a rogue in a part-time capacity, at the cost of doing what he's actually good at. Or maybe he should just stick to doing what he's good at? Crazy talk, I know. If that wizard was in my party, I'd be all over that silliness - dude, stop farting around opening doors with your mind and get out the friggin lock picks. Don't come crying to me when you take a ogre club in the face because you ran out of juice to cast shield. Sheesh. The next time we're back in town I'm hiring a Hobbit, I swear to Tymora.

Exactly.

That Knock spell...or much, much better, that Knock scroll...comes in handy when it's really critical to open a lock, and the Rogue fails. But as a general go-to? Stupid.

 

[Ratskinner]

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

My glyph is on a pebble.

The movement restriction is only on the "object that can be closed", not a surface.

If you choose an object, that object must remain in its place, if the object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken and the spell ends without being triggered.

The word "object" here is specifically in contrast to "a surface" as a casting choice, and the wording for surface has no "immobile" or "flat" restrictions, either.

While the glyph has a maximum size (10 feet) it has no minimum size. So just put it on an arrowhead, or just throw the pebble.

So, I mean, yeah. Its really not necessary to go through the BoH steps if you just choose to put it on a surface rather than "in an object". At least RAW, AFAICT. If you've got the money and time, you could go all hawkeye programmable arrow with it. So long as the programs all do damage/attack something.

That said, I might, were I your DM, make you take an extra action (probably a move would suffice) to search through your quiver for just the right arrow, if you have multiple types, but still seems like it would work.

Now, is that an oversight in the wording?...I dunno. Seems a bit weird to me. Like the intention seems to obviously be creating a smart-triggered "trap", but then why not just say that? Then again, I'm not a fan of the way D&D does its spells/magic overall, so....there's that.

 

[Ashrym]

The movement restriction is only on the "object that can be closed", not a surface.



The word "object" here is specifically in contrast to "a surface" as a casting choice, and the wording for surface has no "immobile" or "flat" restrictions, either.

While the glyph has a maximum size (10 feet) it has no minimum size. So just put it on an arrowhead, or just throw the pebble.

So, I mean, yeah. Its really not necessary to go through the BoH steps if you just choose to put it on a surface rather than "in an object". At least RAW, AFAICT. If you've got the money and time, you could go all hawkeye programmable arrow with it. So long as the programs all do damage/attack something.

That said, I might, were I your DM, make you take an extra action (probably a move would suffice) to search through your quiver for just the right arrow, if you have multiple types, but still seems like it would work.

Now, is that an oversight in the wording?...I dunno. Seems a bit weird to me. Like the intention seems to obviously be creating a smart-triggered "trap", but then why not just say that? Then again, I'm not a fan of the way D&D does its spells/magic overall, so....there's that.

There's been clarification for this already.

Glyph of Warding (p. 245). The first sentence clarifies that the magical effect needn’t be harmful. The final two sentences of the first paragraph now read as follows: “The glyph can cover an area no larger than 10 feet in diameter. If the surface or object is moved more than 10 feet from where you cast this spell, the glyph is broken, and the spell ends without being triggered.”

The wording was updated to match the intent. Glyphs are meant to remain at the location at which they were cast.

That doesn't stop someone from casting a hoard of glyphs given the time and gold but the glyphs don't get moved away from that location.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

This part I agree with.

Then there's this part....



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.

Yeah. other myths

While technically there are enough myths for a man to read until the day he dies and still have no end in sight, ive read a large enough quantity to make the judgement.

You are incorrect. I dont just need to read other myths. Im bowing out of this conversation. Its gotten a bit old for my taste at this point.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The movement restriction is only on the "object that can be closed", not a surface.



The word "object" here is specifically in contrast to "a surface" as a casting choice, and the wording for surface has no "immobile" or "flat" restrictions, either.

While the glyph has a maximum size (10 feet) it has no minimum size. So just put it on an arrowhead, or just throw the pebble.

So, I mean, yeah. Its really not necessary to go through the BoH steps if you just choose to put it on a surface rather than "in an object". At least RAW, AFAICT. If you've got the money and time, you could go all hawkeye programmable arrow with it. So long as the programs all do damage/attack something.

That said, I might, were I your DM, make you take an extra action (probably a move would suffice) to search through your quiver for just the right arrow, if you have multiple types, but still seems like it would work.

Now, is that an oversight in the wording?...I dunno. Seems a bit weird to me. Like the intention seems to obviously be creating a smart-triggered "trap", but then why not just say that? Then again, I'm not a fan of the way D&D does its spells/magic overall, so....there's that.

@Ashrym beat me to it. I wasnt around to see this particular post but i was gonna say they errata'd the surface not having restricted movement.

Otherwise good catch though

Also, im unsure if this was intended for intrepid players wanting to build a smart trap or if it wasnt, but i could see it being that way. I could see them changing their minds and passing something off as a mistake in the wording. Definitely wouldnt be the first time.

 

[Ratskinner]

@Ashrym beat me to it. I wasnt around to see this particular post but i was gonna say they errata'd the surface not having restricted movement.

Otherwise good catch though

Also, im unsure if this was intended for intrepid players wanting to build a smart trap or if it wasnt, but i could see it being that way. I could see them changing their minds and passing something off as a mistake in the wording. Definitely wouldnt be the first time.

Yeah, the online resource I was drawing from apparently hadn't errata'd their text.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah. other myths

While technically there are enough myths for a man to read until the day he dies and still have no end in sight, ive read a large enough quantity to make the judgement.

You are incorrect. I dont just need to read other myths. Im bowing out of this conversation. Its gotten a bit old for my taste at this point.

And this piece of paper I'm holding has the names of 51 known communist sympathizers.

 

[Mistwell]

Why must we turn a pleasant topic into an ego pissing match between who has read the most myths? That sort of nerd fight is no better than basketball fans who argue about who has played more street ball games.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why must we turn a pleasant topic into an ego pissing match between who has read the most myths? That sort of nerd fight is no better than basketball fans who argue about who has played more street ball games.

Yes, EXACTLY.

And part II is: who freakin' CARES? I mean, if somebody wants their games to reflect their favorite myths, stories, etc., that's fine. But citing literary precedent as some kind of determinant of how games should be designed? WTF?