Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="M_Natas" data-source="post: 9482141" data-attributes="member: 7025918">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.You can always discuss, if a specific rule closes of the Arnesonian Space or not, but in general,  TTRPG rules are doing that.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.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.Making it impossible is already the Gygaxian Space. A negative rule is still a rule.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.</blockquote>

Verification