Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Perun" data-source="post: 7834422" data-attributes="member: 6037">No problem here. I'm aware that I'm actually on the losing side, as the RAW support the no penalties approach. With that in mind, it's a bit difficult to defend my position, as one has simply to point out the rules (which I actually did) and all of my arguments are irrelevant.But to cut it short, for anyone not willing to read through the wall of text that follows, what I'm trying to defend is the idea that if you would be giving penalties for using disguise kit to characters trying to pass off as members of other races, especially those with significant physical differences, you should be giving those same penalties to warforged envoys with integrated disguise kits. No more, and no less.Well, in my post when I used 'built-in', I meant 'integrated'. I agree with you here, but English is not my first language, so the difference between the two was not readily apparent to me.We've covered the expertise in tools already. It's fairly difficult to get in game, and the only other option I'm aware of, apart from the envoy, it the (still unofficial) version of the artificer from UA, as both you and [USER=6855204]@tglassy[/USER] mentioned.The proficiency bonus starts at +2 and goes to +6. That means that an envoy WF will have an effective bonus ranging from +2 to +6 (depending on level) when compared to a skirmisher WF rogue with a proficiency in disguise kit. That's the advantage the envoy gets over other warforged (or other humanoids of different build), that represents the fact that he was constructed with that one purpose.I think this is where we disagree the most, while being in agreement at the same time, the RAF. I believe that everybody should have fun at the table. This is the no. 1 priority, the Rule 0, if you will. If someone is not having fun, the entire game is pointless.Someone wants to play a WF infiltrator. There are rules for that. But the character doesn't get to be the best infiltrator ever, just because of flavour or "concept". The character will be good at infiltration, however you read the rules.But see below, when I mention other tools available to envoys.Agreed on that, we don't know what he specifically intended with the rules, but we have some indication.[USER=6802951]@Cap'n Kobold[/USER] posted this earlier in the thread:While I haven't actually listened to the podcast, I think that's a strong indication of KB's intentions. Combined with the relevant parts in the WGtE (emphasys mine):andSo, while the tool is integrated with the envoy's body (and it could be argued that the envoy is the tool, as you mentioned above), I still see it as a tool. It's not like selecting a normal class proficiency, but it is like getting a normal racial proficiency, along the lines of how dwarves get to choose between smith's tool, brewer's supplies, or mason's tools. It is different in that for dwarves it's, presumably, a cultural thing (although this isn't specified anywhere, so one could argue it's built-in (or integrated, if you will <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) in the very essence of dwarfdom). In fact, it's even more similar to dwarven Stonecunning -- they get proficiency and expertise in any Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework. Much more limited, of course, but similar.Going back to the WGtE quotes, according to the rules:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">you have to have both hands free in order to use the integrated tool; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Masque is explicitly stated to adjust her appearance manually</li> </ul>Which brings me to this:Unless I'm not reading the rulebook correctly, this should not be the interpretation intended by the author(s).I suppose one could argue that the envoy grow hair, switches her eyes to the more human-looking pair, grows synthetic skin, etc., and then adjusts her appearance in the same sense someone would adjust their tie or shirt or something along those lines.But I believe that the author intended for the disguise to be applied by hand, same as any other disguise by any other character.See above. Even if you give some kind of penalty to the disguise kit use to pass off as a member of another race, they've still got the equivalent of expertise.As for making the "wrong" choice, this is where the DM should step in. If a player IMC wanted to play such a character, I'd let him know in advance the situation he would find himself in. But it would be the same with any other character concept. To use a cliche example, if someone wanted to play a drow character in a campaign where drow are mostly the evil, underground race as resented in the MM, I'd let them know of the difficulties their character might encounter, even if the drow are a core, PHB race. Just because a player imagined their wizard to be the most powerful wizard ever, doesn't mean the DM has to accommodate such "concepts".Ugh. I feel we're running in circles. The envoy's racial abilities give them proficiency in a tool, a skill and an additional language known. Additionally, they get double their proficiency bonus with their chosen tool. Those are their benefits. That's what makes them good at what they do.I just can't see the problem. If you've got the following set of characters, all with identical starting ability scores (before racial modifiers):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a warforged envoy rogue with a charlatan background with an integrated disguise kit, who is focused on infiltration and assassination (specifically of human targets);</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a dragonborn rogue with a charlatan background, proficient in disguise kit, who is focused on infiltration and assassination (specifically of human targets);</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a Brelish human rogue with a charlatan background, proficient in disguise kit, who is focused on infiltration and assassination (specifically of human targets).</li> </ul>who would you say would have the best chances of infiltrating a Thranish stronghold and assassinating the noble high-up commanding it?If you don't apply any kind of penalty to the use of disguise kit, the envoy would get the best chance by far (+2 to +6 bonus, depending on level), while the dragonborn and human would have about the equal chance.If you apply penalties or disadvantages, then the human has the best chances, envoy comes second, and the dragonborn is fully penalised (but keep in mind that nowhere am I implying that the penalties should be so severe as to make the character unplayable). This is, IMO, the way it should be.I'd say there's a reason only six such envoys were ever made. The idea was great, but in the end it became apparent that, while a warforged infiltrator assassin generally worked, it was far easier and more effective to use appropriate flesh-and-blood assassins.Picking an envoy's integrated tool does not have to be an optimal choice, from a mechanical standpoint. The rules allow the envoy to select any tool. Compass Rose, another example envoy, does not get any meaningful mechanical benefit from being a really good google maps app, even with an integrated printer. Same thing with Lute. True, he gets double the proficiency bonus when using his lute, and you could say he's really, really good at playing it, but in order to get any benefits in game, he has to use Performance.In both cases, the player used exactly the same resources as when creating Masque. You could select brewer's supplies, cobbler's tools, glassblower's tools, dragonchess set or bagpipes or any other tool. In fact, no other tool, with the possible exception of thieves' tools, will have such an effect on the character as the disguise kit.It's a proficiency in a tool, and because it's an integral part of you, you get expertise. Some tools are more usable than others, but none provide benefits nearly as good as the ones proposed here. Even thieves' tools are situational -- there have to be locked locks and traps for them to be of any use (we have a rogue in our campaign, and we have had a couple of traps in almost 10 levels, and virtually no locks to open, and yet the player doesn't mind at all, he's had plenty of other opportunities to shine). With disguise kit used as suggested here, you effectively have a slightly weaker alter self at will. Compared to tinker's tools, that's extremely powerful.If another player went for envoy focusing on smith's tools, sort of a mobile forge for in-field repair and manufacture of weapons and armour, a viable concept for a warforged, one that would presumably be much more common than Masque and her "siblings", it is he (or she) who would feel penalised playing next to Masque. What do Rules as Fun say in that case?Same here, although I wouldn't say I'd be reluctant to play at your table; it's different kinds of approach to the (very open) rules. I don't agree with a lot of house rules my current DM introduced to the game, and would not even consider them at my table, but that doesn't prevent me from having a blast when we're playing.An interesting discussion, in any case, even though it took me ages to compose this reply!Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification