D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

M_Natas

Hero
Let's take the mimic example you just gave. It's a good example. I like your reasoning, but I think there's a problem with this line of thinking.

You argue essentially that if feature X is allowed to be designed such that feature X is REQUIRED for activity Y to be possible, then you lock activity Y out from the set of possible actions that can be taken without this specific feature.
Yes. If a feature is requires to do X you can't do X without that feature, unless there are additional rules that allow doing X, too.
Like for example granting the ability to casting spell- You have the class rules, that Gran that ability, you also have race/Spezies rules and Feats that grants that ability, too.
But if you have neither feature, you can't do it.
Having the Actor-Feat means that Mimic Speech is something that can't be done without that feat or another rule that says, that you can do that. For example it is no problem to create a "Mimicborn"-Species, that gets also the ability to mimic speech.

But the Moment you have a specific rule, that requires that you have a specific feature to do X, you can't do it X without a rule that specifically allows it.
A rule doesn't need to be exclusive to be in the Gygaxian Space. What such a rule does is closing if off from the Arnesonian Space. You can still add to the rule in the Gygaxian Space by adding other rules that allow you to do X, but it is closed off to the Arnesonian Space- or the rule becomes senseless (like the actor feat becoming useless if you allow anybody to just mimic speech).
The problem here is that if we follow this reasoning we will come to the conclusion that any activity that is allowed by any feature must not be an exclusive feature, otherwise we lock other people out of features...
No. We can design any rule in a way that locks people put from doing something without a special feature or we can design a rule in a way that doesn't do that.
There is no must, you can do either and it is fine. You just need to be aware of it when designing a game/rule.

And here I think it's obvious to everyone that magic does not follow this at all. Because magic is not exclusive. For example, no one argues that because the knock spell exists, rogues cannot lock pick doors.
Hrm. No. Picking Locks and the Knock spell are both deep in the Gygaxian Space.
You can have two rules, that allow to do the same thing.
Let's stay with this example.
We have a rule that says in order to be able to pick locks you need thieves tools and proficiency with them. So because of this rule, if you don't have either, you can't do it. It is cut off from the Arnesonian Space. But that doesn't mean, that another rule in the Gygaxian Space couldn't allow that feature, too. A magic item could allow you to pick locks with either proficiency nor needing thieves tools, for example. Or our "mimicborn" could have a trait like "fluid fingers" that allows him to pick locks without thieves tools or something.
Now, the spell knock - the spell knock is not lock picking, it is an automatically opening of locks. No skill check required. But it is just another specific rule that allows you to open locks.
That is the main point. If you have a specific rule that says you need it in order to do X, you can't use the general rules that allows everybody to try anything (Arnesonian Space) to do X. You need to stay in the Gygaxian Space and need another rule, that allows X, too.
The conclusion is that we cannot design a non-magic feature that allows someone to do Y, because doing this prevents people without the feature from even attempting Y, but we are allowed to create a spell that does Y because the spell does not restrict people who do not have the spell.

So clearly spells are superior, because they are allowed to do anything without concern for any restrictions imposed on people not using magic.
No. You can design spells either way. Spells are just a set of rules and they can be designed either exclusively gygaxian or the can be designed in a way to not close off the use of the Arnesonian Space.
For example, the Knock spell is well designed in that regard. By itself it doesn't close off the Arnesonian Space (the rules for lock picking do that).
So let's say, that there are no rules for lockpicking in the game. And now we have the spell "Pick Locks".
"When you cast this spell, you can attempt to pick a lock. Do a a dexterity check and add your proficiency bonus to do so ..."
Now, that would be a stupid spell to have, while having also the lockpicking rules, but without having any lock picking rules, the existing of this spell would mean, that the design intent is, that without this spell you can't pick locks (unless another feature like "mimicborn" "liquid hands" allow it).

So, to describe the rule in general.
In a TTRPG game, you you can attempt to do X. The ability to do X is in general in the Arnesonian Space, unless a rule says it is a requirement to use that rule (usually show by the you verbs "can", "must use" and so on) in order to do X. Then doing
X gets locked out of the Arnesonian Space and only another rule can allow you to do X.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

M_Natas

Hero
See, I don't read it that way at all. I would definitely still let a character without that feat attempt to mimic someone else; I just wouldn't let them add their proficiency bonus, and might make it a harder DC depending on circumstances. But there's nothing in that wording that excludes someone without the feat still trying to mimic a voice or sound. That's something all people can try.

Mimicry. You can mimic the sounds of other creatures, including speech. A creature that hears the mimicry must succeed on a Wisdom (Insight) check to determine the effect is faked (DC 8 plus your Charisma modifier and Proficiency Bonus).
Even if you read it that way, you just changed what is in the Gygaxian Space (proficiency with mimic speech and not the ability to mimic speech itself).
The main of the actor feat is advantage on deception and performance checks, on top of the +1 charisma. In heavily social campaigns, it can be really good.

I generally don't read rules as exclusionary if they are describing special facility with something that, intuitively, anyone can attempt. But then, I don't take the rules that seriously, anyway. I'm certainly never going to prioritize a rule over what makes sense in the story.
What you are doing is fine. You are overriding a silly worded feat that clashes with In-World-Logic.
That's what I wrote before, in general, D&D 5e puts anything that a normal human could attempt in the Arnesonian Space. The Actor Feat with its mimicry feature is an exception to the rule, because in general I would intuitively allow anybody to try that with a performance check and ignore the actor feat.
But that is were the debate started. Giving the 1e Thief a special ability to steal and hide, which anybody could attempt. Something was put in the Gygaxian Space, that we all would intuitively agree is in the Arnesonian Space.
 

M_Natas

Hero
yeah this is the sort of thing i was thinking of when i mentioned earlier in the thread-if there's a rule for performing a specific action from a feat or somesuch, apply the rule for people who don't have it, but at disadvantage, or without bonuses, or a higher target DC...
Now you added a house-rule, to trying to fix such rules, that put things firmly in the Gygaxian Space.
The thing is, that rule is hard to track. It would be easier to fix the Actor Feat then to implement a rule that needs you to know any feature in order to know when to apply disadvantage.
 

M_Natas

Hero
The problem with the Thief isn't that rules exist for doing things, it's that the mere existence of the Thief as a class causes rules to be applied unevenly, no mater what level of abstraction you are using. The Thief has to justify it's existence by carving out a niche, which means steeling that niche from other classes that could have otherwise potentially filled it.

Which means this isn't actually about rules, it's about niche protection.
Maybe that was the case in 1e. I think 5e has solved that. Everybody can try to steal or hide, the Rogue is just better at it.
It is about how the Design intend, how the Niche, the archetype is implemented by the rules.
Agreed, but I find people are not giving any benefit of the doubt, thus making their position circular. They have set out to prove that the rules must work this way, and then refuse to ever see the rules as even possibly working some other way.
You can always discuss, if a specific rule closes of the Arnesonian Space or not, but in general, TTRPG rules are doing that.
I don't at all see it that way. This is a guaranteed method, with predefined limitations. Anyone attempting to do this without that feat will be either taking a greater risk (e.g., rolling with disadvantage or a penalty), or getting less out of it, or having to accept the good with the bad, etc. Maybe you need multiple hours to really practice your voice, and even then, people get advantage on their opposed roll to know the sound is faked. Nothing in this text says it cannot be done. All it does is set out how it does work for an expert trained in this fashion. Naturally, an untrained rube with a dream is gonna be worse, but that doesn't make it impossible.
Now you are implementing House rules in order to fix something you see as a problem. You implement another rule in order to try to get it back into the Arnesonian Space. But that gets problematic from a logistical standpoint. Because now you need to track every feature that grants a certain ability to do something and now need to apply disadvantage if anybody tries to do that something without that feature.
It would be way easier to fix such Feats like Actor, if the design intent is, to not close if off from the Arnesonian Space.

Like, without the actor feat, nobody would even debate, that in order to mimic speech, somebody would just need to do a Charisma (Performance) check (maybe with an adjusted DC on how well you know the person you wanna mimic). It would be a No Brainer with the general 5e rules for ability checks.
Now because we have the Actor Feat with its mimicry feature, in order to the same thing, now suddenly you feel the need to implement penalties, to add another rule in order to fix it.
The problem wouldn't arrive if the mimicry feature would say "You have advantage/expertise on any check to try to mimic speech" instead of what we have now.
If and only if they get identical ability, yes. If you use the existing rule as a template for what full training does, you can then extrapolate what untrained might look like. Each table, and possibly each individual instance, will come to slightly different expressions, but they'll all fit into a general shape because they're all riffing off the same source that identifies an upper ceiling that must be clearly avoided.

The "Arnesonian" space is not closed off. It is simply closed at one end.
Yeah, but doing so is stupid. Because like I said, now you need to track any special feature and now apply a house rule to that feature in order to open up the lower end. I doubt that is feasible for a human to do and just more work. Because it changes the general rule.
The general rule is, in order to try to do X you make ability check (apply skill proficiency were it makes sense).
Now because of the actor feat, you change that for "mimicking speech" to "in order to try to do X you make ability check, don't add proficiency and also have disadvantage".
Now, if you do that for 10-15 exception, you will go crazy.
Or you just fix the Actor Feat.
The general rule precedes halfling. Halfling provides a special exception, explicitly. This is not an exclusionary rule that somehow is what prevents anyone else from doing what halflings do. Halflings get to do a thing that was already impossible for anyone else.
Making it impossible is already the Gygaxian Space. A negative rule is still a rule.
Except that I have already gone on record as saying I don't think that that is true, that I am willing to open negotiation for a magical effect under amenable or interesting conditions—they're just going to always have something more, something the character (and, most times, the player as well) wouldn't like to deal with if they didn't have to.

Example: Player A's beloved and devoutly religious (but not magic-using) character Sam has just died. the party has no access to revivify and is far too low level for raise dear, so Sam is just dead. Player B's jaded, cynical, atheist character (also not a spellcaster) Pat, who has slowly, quietly become fond of Sam despite Pat's gruff manner and "I don't need friends" attitude,makes a sincere, heartfelt plea: "If you're really there...if you really care about mortals like us...save Sam. Please. I...I didn't know how much I needed them."

There are so many things I can do with this as DM. Perhaps I ask for a roll, perhaps I don't. If I do ask for one, a bad roll might not even mean the request fails....it might instead mean that someone other than Sam's deity has answered the prayer, setting up a juicy conflict for later. Or it might mean that Sam comes back kind of wrong (now undead or partially undead). Or it might mean Sam's soul is now stuck in a custody battle between two deities who both now have some claim.

If I don't ask for a roll, that most likely means I'm going to do what Dungeon World does with Defy Danger partial successes: offer "a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice."

Had Pat been a Cleric or had a scroll of revivify, there'd be no need for any of this. Sweet and simple. No fuss, no muss, just instant back in the action (well, sort of, revivify leaves you at 1 HP, IIRC.) Trying to call upon the favor of the gods when you have no training is dangerous and draws all sorts of attention you absolutely do not want to draw. That's why people don't do it, and especially not for minor or trivial things. But many of the gods love a good drama, and little is more dramatic than an answered prayer in one's most desperate hour of need.

Even the existence of magic rules does not negate negotiation. It simply sets a ceiling for what can be done, and a floor for what price must be paid.


Only if you do it wrong. Divine Intervention is cost-free. Begging the gods for aid in your darkest hour is absolutely not going to be cost-free. That's a cost that may define a campaign!


Nope. It is only there if you decide that the existence of a rule makes it impossible to negotiate...which means your argument is circular.
Of course you can always ignore rules and house rule.
But this is about design intent and general application.
I bet most tables wouldn't allow a character to be revivifyed if you don't have the spell, because that is the design intent. The same way you wouldn't allow a barbarian to just yell fireball and have him cast it, even though the rules say he can't do that.
But yes, being able to break the rules doesn't mean, that you can't do it, were you think it makes sense, story wise. TTRPGs are not Computer Games that enforces the rules strictly.

I also allowed a revivify to work, even though the cleric didn't had diamonds and not even the spell prepared, because he made a bargain with the local goddess to switch to her in order to save another party member.
But I also know that that broke the 5e rules, that that was an exception that made sense story wise and wouldn't really allow it again, or revivify and raise dead and so on become meaningless.
Also D&D (5e) has bad god mechanics/missing rules for interacting with God's if you are not a cleric.

But breaking rules doesn't mean the rules don't exist or are not designed to do a certain thing.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Yeah, but doing so is stupid.
No, it is not. It is the core of responsive, creative DMing. And if that's your response, I have nothing further to say to you on this subject. You have just completely written off any possibility that your position could ever be wrong.
 

M_Natas

Hero
No, it is not. It is the core of responsive, creative DMing. And if that's your response, I have nothing further to say to you on this subject. You have just completely written off any possibility that your position could ever be wrong.
It is bad game design, that you have a good general rule (do an ability check, apply skills proficiency were applicable), then put in a specific rule that says, you need this feature in order to do X as ability check (skill) (the same as the general rule, now locked behind a feat) and now have to put exception into your general rule, in order to do X, make ability check with disadvantage.
That is bad game design. It puts unnecessary cognitive load on the DM, who now has to keep all special rules in mind, that he needs to adjust.

It is way easier to fix the Actor feed then to put in a special exception to "mimic speech" to the general action adjudication.

That you need to house rule such exceptions to "mimic speech", yeah, that's what DMs can do, in order to fix a bad rule. But it makes it way harder for the DM and it stupid game design.

Because now the DM has to keep this rule exception in mind for "mimic speech" and then you fix other features the same way and now it is not only one thing but dozens ...
It is better to design in a way that doesn't need a house rule by the DM.

That's why I said, doing so is stupid. Because it is unnecessary complicated and if you do a house rule it is way easier to fix the problematic feat then to put in exceptions to the general action resolution mechanic for things that character should be able to just try.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
It is bad game design, that you have a good general rule (do an ability check, apply skills proficiency were applicable), then put in a specific rule that says, you need this feature in order to do X as ability check (skill) (the same as the general rule, now locked behind a feat) and now have to put exception into your general rule, in order to do X, make ability check with disadvantage.
That is bad game design. It puts unnecessary cognitive load on the DM, who now has to keep all special rules in mind, that he needs to adjust.
Except that, as I have repeatedly said, it doesn't say that.

It simply says that IF you have <feature X>, THEN you definitely can do <thing Y>.

That emphatically IS NOT the same as "Unless you have <feature X>, <thing Y> and anything like it are forbidden to you."

You are bringing that into this. And that is why we cannot have a discussion about this--because you will not allow that assumption to be questioned or challenged in any way.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
It's not just the Actor Feat that grants this ability. Kenku have a similar ability as a racial feature:

  • Mimicry. You can accurately mimic sounds you have heard, including voices. A creature that hears the sounds you make can tell they are imitations only with a successful Wisdom (Insight) check against a DC of 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier.
RE: why not give the Actor Feat advantage on a check that anyone could make to mimic speech? Well, they already have that ability:
  • You have an advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person.
Thus, when someone makes an Insight check opposed by their Deception check (assuming they want you to believe their mimicry is that of another person), their check has advantage.
 

M_Natas

Hero
Except that, as I have repeatedly said, it doesn't say that.

It simply says that IF you have <feature X>, THEN you definitely can do <thing Y>.

That emphatically IS NOT the same as "Unless you have <feature X>, <thing Y> and anything like it are forbidden to you."

You are bringing that into this. And that is why we cannot have a discussion about this--because you will not allow that assumption to be questioned or challenged in any way.
But you already say it is problematic. You already said yourself, because of the actor feat, now you have to house rule the adjudication of any "mimic speech" a character tries without the feat differently, namley with disadvantage or another penalty.

You wouldn't have to do that if the actor feat in its current form wouldn't close of the Arnesonian Space. You created a new rule in order to enable characters to do "mimic speech" without the actor feat.

Without the actor feat in the game we would have the general rule for action resolution.

Character tries to mimic speech, do a Charisma (performance) check.

With the actor feat in the game it now gets more complicated:

Does character have actor feat? No? Okay, he can't mimic speech, unless we create a house rule now, that he can do that with disadvantage.

What you did, is adding a new rule to game:

"If a feature gives a character the ability to do X (by X being a mundane ability that a character realistically could do), a Character without that feature can only does X with disadvantage."

So, you added a new rule, to fix the problem.
The problem is, you now broke the flow of the rules.
In 5e in general you have General Rules and specific rules beat general rules. They override general rules. So the flow is always, read the general rule, and then read the specific rule. That's all you need.

But now with your new house rule, you go from general rule, to specific rule and back to a general rule, in order to fix the specific rule.

That adds mental load and is unnecessary complicated. It is way easier to fix the Actor Feat, then to implement a general rule that forces you to reference all the specific rules.
 
Last edited:

M_Natas

Hero
It's not just the Actor Feat that grants this ability. Kenku have a similar ability as a racial feature:

  • Mimicry. You can accurately mimic sounds you have heard, including voices. A creature that hears the sounds you make can tell they are imitations only with a successful Wisdom (Insight) check against a DC of 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier.
RE: why not give the Actor Feat advantage on a check that anyone could make to mimic speech? Well, they already have that ability:
  • You have an advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person.
Thus, when someone makes an Insight check opposed by their Deception check (assuming they want you to believe their mimicry is that of another person), their check has advantage.
I already established, that several different rules can grant the same ability.
Such a rule just closes of the Arnesonian Space - but if you add another rule, you are still in the Gygaxian Space.

And the actor feat is just an example. You can also go with casting spells, which is maybe easier to comprehend, because it is not something a normal person could just try.
 

Remove ads

Top