So the thread about Lockpicking set me to thinking. In it, someone shows an Artificer build/gear setup that gives +18 to Lockpicking. Immediately, I thought "Awesome way to cover that if there's no Rogue in the party" Well, then it's said later in the thread that the DM would have to set stupid high DC on locks to keep the challenge level right, and that would put Rogues out of the game for picking them.
Isn't that a Player problem, not a DM or game mechanic? If there's a Rogue in your party and he's doing the lockpicking, why are you wasting resource on getting your Artificer to show him up? Similar arguments could be made on the Monk vs Fighter w/Unarmed fighting style. If a class can focus on something and meet or sometimes beat a single facet of another class (even if that's kind of the specialty of the class) why would a player DO that, if the "natural" choice was already present in the party? I think a lot of the concerns and outrage come when another player in the group does this, deliberately picking skills or feats and chasing gear to one-up the party member whose role it normally is. If taken as fun and ribbing, fine, but when folks start getting bent.....well, that's the attitude that kills fun faster than a Yeti kills Goblins.
I find it really interesting to see that many classes are able to fill roles one often wouldn't expect them to dive into, remarkably well. It's always at the cost of some other facet of the character build/skills/gear mixture, but to me, this ABILITY to fill holes in party skills is what allows for some truly dynamic and interesting parties, as well as campaigns. I don't consider multi-classing in the same vein for filling roles, as that's the easy way out. I am more fond of seeing and hearing how someone used a feat, a piece of gear and an underutilized spell to reach a +12 on a check that everyone thought was likely out of reach for the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I mean, there are plenty of other things Rogues can do that Artificers can't and Artificers' entire schtick is being tinkering savants - is it really stealing the Rogue's thunder to do something you're supposed to be good at, just because there's an overlap in skill?
What determines who gets to have which thunder? And why can't it be shared? It's not like the combat spotlight isn't pretty much assumed to be shared, and I rarely see anyone complain about having more than one character able to do research, or navigate the wilds, or smooth-talk those pesky local officers of the law who've taken an inconvenient interest in the party's recent activities.
So we have two different points here that we're talking about:
To pangurjans point: Thieves tools is specifically hard for artificers to not steal thunder. They get thieves tools by default at 1, and get free expertise in them at 6. Rogues also get them at one, but they don't have to spend expertise on them.
To the other point, I think it boils down to players being aware of this. We have two lock picks in our party, and we just take turns. That's it. It's a collaborative game. Talk to the people at the table and lets go.
The person who said the DM would have to set a stupid high PC for rogues was not the OP so probably had no idea what the party composition was. I think his comment was more about the power of gloves of thievery.
That does however leave the question of more than one persomn in the party being good at one thing.
I think lockpicking is at one end of the scale because if you come across a lock it is expected that the person who is best at lockpicking does it all the time. It two or more players have made their character good at lockpicking it can be a bit of a disappointment to find someone else is even better than you at it.
Because expertise and reliable Rogues are actually often on the othre side of this. A level 13 Rogue, maybe an arcance trickster, with expertise in Arcana and an int of 16 has +13 to Arcana and can not roll less than a 23. The wizard with int 20 would only have a +10 and would only get 23 on an arcana check 40% of the time.
I think both of these is an issue with expertise, and reliable (I think they should only apply to rogue skills) and some magic items.
Monk & unarmed fighter is no more of an issue than barbarian and fighter both wielding swords two melee fighters in a party is not a problem and it makes no different what they use to attack. In fact the unarmed fighter is likely to be a tank / grappler where the monk is likely to be a skirmisher so the later is better synergy.
In the middle ground is something like a face. The bard might expect to be the face but due to expertise and reliable the rogue is better at persuasion. While people talk of theparty having a "face" in reality the party will all be present when they meet an NPC. While the party might decide the rogue should open the conversation if the bard thinks of something to ask it is they that do so (it would be very odd if he takes the rogue aside and says "He says he is from Scornubel, we know [minor story hook] happened there see if he knows anything about it). (The rogue will be quite glaad it wasn;t the barbarian with Charisma 8 that asked !)
It is something to discuss in session 0 do you want to carefully carve out rolls amonst the party to make sure everyone has a chance to shine or does everyone create their own character and work together whatever they come up with, or something in between (we want at least one melee fighter and at least one person who can heal and have someone at least reasonably high in each ability score). Reality is probably somewhere in the middle; 5 wizards probably would form a party of adventurers they would split up and go with people with different skills but if a rogue came accross an artificer who made in devices that made him better at opening than the rogue they could still work together as the artificer would need the rogue for his other abilities such as stealth.
I mean, there are plenty of other things Rogues can do that Artificers can't and Artificers' entire schtick is being tinkering savants - is it really stealing the Rogue's thunder to do something you're supposed to be good at, just because there's an overlap in skill?
What determines who gets to have which thunder? And why can't it be shared? It's not like the combat spotlight isn't pretty much assumed to be shared, and I rarely see anyone complain about having more than one character able to do research, or navigate the wilds, or smooth-talk those pesky local officers of the law who've taken an inconvenient interest in the party's recent activities.
I am sure I am missing context here, but with the right background and feats, literally any class can be a master locksmith if they want. Some classes just get there easier but those same classes do so much more than picking locks that I fail to understand why this would even be an issue.
This is why my group always works out party composition in session 0. Not necessarily to cover particular roles, but to ensure that our specializations are diverse enough that we don't have two characters based around the same concept.
That being said, I have joined a game in progress where I was exactly this guy - the artificer that could outshine the rogue with thieves tools. I always let him try first and only stepped up if he failed. I'm not sure he was ever aware that I was better at it. I was happy emphasizing other aspects of my character.
This is why my group always works out party composition in session 0. Not necessarily to cover particular roles, but to ensure that our specializations are diverse enough that we don't have two characters based around the same concept.
That being said, I have joined a game in progress where I was exactly this guy - the artificer that could outshine the rogue with thieves tools. I always let him try first and only stepped up if he failed. I'm not sure he was ever aware that I was better at it. I was happy emphasizing other aspects of my character.
I think this thing illustrates how broken Artificers are in many game settings, especially ones with scare magic items. You want to pick locks, done. You want someone to make Potions of Healing? Move over Druid, the Artificer is here. Hey, you that make meals using Cooking Utensils, you can be the sous chef, because the Artificer is the Head Chef. The Bard was always considered the Jack of All Trades. Not any longer.
This is why my group always works out party composition in session 0. Not necessarily to cover particular roles, but to ensure that our specializations are diverse enough that we don't have two characters based around the same concept.
That being said, I have joined a game in progress where I was exactly this guy - the artificer that could outshine the rogue with thieves tools. I always let him try first and only stepped up if he failed. I'm not sure he was ever aware that I was better at it. I was happy emphasizing other aspects of my character.
I think this thing illustrates how broken Artificers are in many game settings, especially ones with scare magic items. You want to pick locks, done. You want someone to make Potions of Healing? Move over Druid, the Artificer is here. Hey, you that make meals using Cooking Utensils, you can be the sous chef, because the Artificer is the Head Chef. The Bard was always considered the Jack of All Trades. Not any longer.
Artificers are great with TOOLS but anything not involving a tool they aren't amazing at. Artificers are as problematic as the other skill monkey classes. Rogues are only problems if you let them be, no one complains that at level 10 they can never roll below say a 18 on proficient checks but no one cares. Bards can do a little bit of everything, they get half proficiency in all skills making them better at skills than others but again no one care.
Artificers can be good at lockpicking and other craft tools, and all the sudden it's an issue.
Spotlight hogging is a table by table issue. Frankly, some rogues might enjoy having someone else lockpick - that way they can stop getting blamed for missing the trap! But DMs need to recognize where people are trying to fall and see that everyone gets a chance at the thing they really want with their character. If two people are trying to do the same thing and fill the same niche, make up challenges that require BOTH of them in order to succeed. That way there is no toes being stepped on, and the coop game can seemingly function like it is a team game Vs everyone needs to be pigeonholed into a niche and no one else can try that niche.
I am sure I am missing context here, but with the right background and feats, literally any class can be a master locksmith if they want. Some classes just get there easier but those same classes do so much more than picking locks that I fail to understand why this would even be an issue.
True, but since rogue is the only class for whom DEX is a prime stat, the tools using DEX are sort-of the "rogue's thing."
Also, picking locks is an activity where success or failure depends on literally one roll, so players who want their characters to do it generally go all out. For a fighter, +3 or +4 or +5 to hit doesn't matter all that much when you've got lots of attacks and lots of rounds to take down the foe. If you only get one chance at a lock, you want that +5. Better still, you want that +18. The same goes for social checks. If you only get one chance to impress the duke or to convince the vizier, then you are going to make your character as good at CHA (Persuasion) as you can.
Speaking from experience, +18 to CHA (Deception) is way more game-breaking than +18 to DEX (Thief's Tools). :-)
I feel that "thunder" is something that should be discussed during session 0. It is part of the social contract. If I say I'm creating a character that I intend to be a master at one role, whether it be that of a diplomat or a burglar, then I wouold be anoyed if another player turns up with a character better than mine. That's just rude.
The issue in that other thread was that the player of an artificer didn't make a better lockpicker than the rogue; it was that every artificer is a better lockpick than the rogue.
So the thread about Lockpicking set me to thinking. In it, someone shows an Artificer build/gear setup that gives +18 to Lockpicking. Immediately, I thought "Awesome way to cover that if there's no Rogue in the party" Well, then it's said later in the thread that the DM would have to set stupid high DC on locks to keep the challenge level right, and that would put Rogues out of the game for picking them.
Isn't that a Player problem, not a DM or game mechanic? If there's a Rogue in your party and he's doing the lockpicking, why are you wasting resource on getting your Artificer to show him up? Similar arguments could be made on the Monk vs Fighter w/Unarmed fighting style. If a class can focus on something and meet or sometimes beat a single facet of another class (even if that's kind of the specialty of the class) why would a player DO that, if the "natural" choice was already present in the party? I think a lot of the concerns and outrage come when another player in the group does this, deliberately picking skills or feats and chasing gear to one-up the party member whose role it normally is. If taken as fun and ribbing, fine, but when folks start getting bent.....well, that's the attitude that kills fun faster than a Yeti kills Goblins.
I find it really interesting to see that many classes are able to fill roles one often wouldn't expect them to dive into, remarkably well. It's always at the cost of some other facet of the character build/skills/gear mixture, but to me, this ABILITY to fill holes in party skills is what allows for some truly dynamic and interesting parties, as well as campaigns. I don't consider multi-classing in the same vein for filling roles, as that's the easy way out. I am more fond of seeing and hearing how someone used a feat, a piece of gear and an underutilized spell to reach a +12 on a check that everyone thought was likely out of reach for the group.
Disclaimer, it's not my intention to detract the thread but.....
The +18 was assuming that they rolled a 4 on the Guidance cantrip. But even still the rogue can easily match that and beat it. Most rogue's are dex based and by level 4 you would expect an 18 or 20 dex and there will almost always be someone in the party that can cast guidance on the rogue so with that in mind a level 4 rogue can reach +20 to lock picking given the same circumstances;
The other thing which you need to consider is that (unless I'm missing something in the artificer's class), the artificer can function as a support character, making the gloves of theivery/lockpicking and then giving them to the rogue who picks locks. They don't have to function selfishly and keep all the magic items for themselves. If they made a magical battleaxe, the party would get more mileage if they give it to the barbarian. Same deal giving the gloves to the rogue.
If this sort of thing occurs, the DM can compensate - give them some puzzles where there are 2 locks to pick (in which they have to succeed on the same turn). It's like if the party has several fighters, you give them more things to fight so the glory doesn't all go to whoever rolled high on initiative!
The other thing which you need to consider is that (unless I'm missing something in the artificer's class), the artificer can function as a support character, making the gloves of theivery/lockpicking and then giving them to the rogue who picks locks. They don't have to function selfishly and keep all the magic items for themselves. If they made a magical battleaxe, the party would get more mileage if they give it to the barbarian. Same deal giving the gloves to the rogue.
If this sort of thing occurs, the DM can compensate - give them some puzzles where there are 2 locks to pick (in which they have to succeed on the same turn). It's like if the party has several fighters, you give them more things to fight so the glory doesn't all go to whoever rolled high on initiative!
They could, but when they can get as good or superior numbers themselves, why would they?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but equipment aside it's just the rogue's Expertise vs the artificer's Tool Expertise - which is a wash, other than the rogue getting this at 1st level and the artificer only at 6th - and the rogue's Dex vs the artificer's Dex - which likely favours the rogue.
So, if gear helps both equally and the rogue probably has a better overall bonus and presumably started out as the go-to lockpicker because of having an additional bonus over the artificer for the first five levels... why wouldn't the artificer choose to give the party the best chance of success by equipping the rogue?
The other thing which you need to consider is that (unless I'm missing something in the artificer's class), the artificer can function as a support character, making the gloves of theivery/lockpicking and then giving them to the rogue who picks locks. They don't have to function selfishly and keep all the magic items for themselves. If they made a magical battleaxe, the party would get more mileage if they give it to the barbarian. Same deal giving the gloves to the rogue.
If this sort of thing occurs, the DM can compensate - give them some puzzles where there are 2 locks to pick (in which they have to succeed on the same turn). It's like if the party has several fighters, you give them more things to fight so the glory doesn't all go to whoever rolled high on initiative!
They could, but when they can get as good or superior numbers themselves, why would they?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but equipment aside it's just the rogue's Expertise vs the artificer's Tool Expertise - which is a wash, other than the rogue getting this at 1st level and the artificer only at 6th - and the rogue's Dex vs the artificer's Dex - which likely favours the rogue.
So, if gear helps both equally and the rogue probably has a better overall bonus and presumably started out as the go-to lockpicker because of having an additional bonus over the artificer for the first five levels... why wouldn't the artificer choose to give the party the best chance of success by equipping the rogue?
The Artificer gets expertise too. At 6th, they get expertise in all tools.
I'm aware, which is why I explicitly pointed out this puts the artificer on equal footing in terms of proficiency 5 levels after starting the campaign. It doesn't give the artificer an advantage, it only cuts down on the rogue's - most likely not making up the difference completely, because the rogue's Dex bonus probably exceeds the artificer's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I notice that you are conveniently assuming the rogue has the gloves... The artificer can ensure a pair. The Rogue cannot.
Well of course, you can't compare like for like if they aren't actually like for like. Even more importantly, at level 5 the Artificer does not have the expertise feature so the rogue is at least +3 higher than the artificer. Why wouldn't the gloves go to the rogue if they were available? It would be a selfish player indeed that tried to keep them away from the groups lock / trap monkey at that point.
The other thing which you need to consider is that (unless I'm missing something in the artificer's class), the artificer can function as a support character, making the gloves of theivery/lockpicking and then giving them to the rogue who picks locks. They don't have to function selfishly and keep all the magic items for themselves. If they made a magical battleaxe, the party would get more mileage if they give it to the barbarian. Same deal giving the gloves to the rogue.
If this sort of thing occurs, the DM can compensate - give them some puzzles where there are 2 locks to pick (in which they have to succeed on the same turn). It's like if the party has several fighters, you give them more things to fight so the glory doesn't all go to whoever rolled high on initiative!
They could, but when they can get as good or superior numbers themselves, why would they?
Actually Artificers don't get expertise until level 6 and so at level 1-4 rogues have a minimum of a 2 higher skill and at level 5 a rogue will have a 3 higher skill, not counting the fact that the rogue will likely also have a higher Dex at level 4. So there is a very good reason why the artificer should hand over the gloves.
The Artificer gets expertise too. At 6th, they get expertise in all tools.
We know that, but not until level 6, whereas the rogue has always had the option to have it from level 1. The artificer gaining expertise at level 6 only (potentially) allows the artificer to equal (not exceed) the rogue assuming that they both have the same dexterity. However artificer is int based and rogue is dex based so in all likelihood the rogue will still have a higher skill level.
The Artificer gets expertise too. At 6th, they get expertise in all tools.
We know that, but not until level 6, whereas the rogue has always had the option to have it from level 1. The artificer gaining expertise at level 6 only (potentially) allows the artificer to equal (not exceed) the rogue assuming that they both have the same dexterity. However artificer is int based and rogue is dex based so in all likelihood the rogue will still have a higher skill level.
Assuming the artificer does not care about getting hit....
Artificers have significantly better armor options than rogues. Regardless, the point is artificers are going to trail rogues as lockpicking experts for the first 5 levels of the game (assuming the rogue wants to be a lockpicking expert, and if not there isn't any thunder to steal anyway) and will only catch up at best from level 6 on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Artificer gets expertise too. At 6th, they get expertise in all tools.
We know that, but not until level 6, whereas the rogue has always had the option to have it from level 1. The artificer gaining expertise at level 6 only (potentially) allows the artificer to equal (not exceed) the rogue assuming that they both have the same dexterity. However artificer is int based and rogue is dex based so in all likelihood the rogue will still have a higher skill level.
Assuming the artificer does not care about getting hit....
The starting armour proficienies are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the thread about Lockpicking set me to thinking. In it, someone shows an Artificer build/gear setup that gives +18 to Lockpicking. Immediately, I thought "Awesome way to cover that if there's no Rogue in the party" Well, then it's said later in the thread that the DM would have to set stupid high DC on locks to keep the challenge level right, and that would put Rogues out of the game for picking them.
Isn't that a Player problem, not a DM or game mechanic? If there's a Rogue in your party and he's doing the lockpicking, why are you wasting resource on getting your Artificer to show him up? Similar arguments could be made on the Monk vs Fighter w/Unarmed fighting style. If a class can focus on something and meet or sometimes beat a single facet of another class (even if that's kind of the specialty of the class) why would a player DO that, if the "natural" choice was already present in the party? I think a lot of the concerns and outrage come when another player in the group does this, deliberately picking skills or feats and chasing gear to one-up the party member whose role it normally is. If taken as fun and ribbing, fine, but when folks start getting bent.....well, that's the attitude that kills fun faster than a Yeti kills Goblins.
I find it really interesting to see that many classes are able to fill roles one often wouldn't expect them to dive into, remarkably well. It's always at the cost of some other facet of the character build/skills/gear mixture, but to me, this ABILITY to fill holes in party skills is what allows for some truly dynamic and interesting parties, as well as campaigns. I don't consider multi-classing in the same vein for filling roles, as that's the easy way out. I am more fond of seeing and hearing how someone used a feat, a piece of gear and an underutilized spell to reach a +12 on a check that everyone thought was likely out of reach for the group.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I mean, there are plenty of other things Rogues can do that Artificers can't and Artificers' entire schtick is being tinkering savants - is it really stealing the Rogue's thunder to do something you're supposed to be good at, just because there's an overlap in skill?
What determines who gets to have which thunder? And why can't it be shared? It's not like the combat spotlight isn't pretty much assumed to be shared, and I rarely see anyone complain about having more than one character able to do research, or navigate the wilds, or smooth-talk those pesky local officers of the law who've taken an inconvenient interest in the party's recent activities.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So we have two different points here that we're talking about:
To pangurjans point: Thieves tools is specifically hard for artificers to not steal thunder. They get thieves tools by default at 1, and get free expertise in them at 6. Rogues also get them at one, but they don't have to spend expertise on them.
To the other point, I think it boils down to players being aware of this. We have two lock picks in our party, and we just take turns. That's it. It's a collaborative game. Talk to the people at the table and lets go.
The person who said the DM would have to set a stupid high PC for rogues was not the OP so probably had no idea what the party composition was. I think his comment was more about the power of gloves of thievery.
That does however leave the question of more than one persomn in the party being good at one thing.
I think lockpicking is at one end of the scale because if you come across a lock it is expected that the person who is best at lockpicking does it all the time. It two or more players have made their character good at lockpicking it can be a bit of a disappointment to find someone else is even better than you at it.
Because expertise and reliable Rogues are actually often on the othre side of this. A level 13 Rogue, maybe an arcance trickster, with expertise in Arcana and an int of 16 has +13 to Arcana and can not roll less than a 23. The wizard with int 20 would only have a +10 and would only get 23 on an arcana check 40% of the time.
I think both of these is an issue with expertise, and reliable (I think they should only apply to rogue skills) and some magic items.
Monk & unarmed fighter is no more of an issue than barbarian and fighter both wielding swords two melee fighters in a party is not a problem and it makes no different what they use to attack. In fact the unarmed fighter is likely to be a tank / grappler where the monk is likely to be a skirmisher so the later is better synergy.
In the middle ground is something like a face. The bard might expect to be the face but due to expertise and reliable the rogue is better at persuasion. While people talk of theparty having a "face" in reality the party will all be present when they meet an NPC. While the party might decide the rogue should open the conversation if the bard thinks of something to ask it is they that do so (it would be very odd if he takes the rogue aside and says "He says he is from Scornubel, we know [minor story hook] happened there see if he knows anything about it). (The rogue will be quite glaad it wasn;t the barbarian with Charisma 8 that asked !)
It is something to discuss in session 0 do you want to carefully carve out rolls amonst the party to make sure everyone has a chance to shine or does everyone create their own character and work together whatever they come up with, or something in between (we want at least one melee fighter and at least one person who can heal and have someone at least reasonably high in each ability score). Reality is probably somewhere in the middle; 5 wizards probably would form a party of adventurers they would split up and go with people with different skills but if a rogue came accross an artificer who made in devices that made him better at opening than the rogue they could still work together as the artificer would need the rogue for his other abilities such as stealth.
I am sure I am missing context here, but with the right background and feats, literally any class can be a master locksmith if they want. Some classes just get there easier but those same classes do so much more than picking locks that I fail to understand why this would even be an issue.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is why my group always works out party composition in session 0. Not necessarily to cover particular roles, but to ensure that our specializations are diverse enough that we don't have two characters based around the same concept.
That being said, I have joined a game in progress where I was exactly this guy - the artificer that could outshine the rogue with thieves tools. I always let him try first and only stepped up if he failed. I'm not sure he was ever aware that I was better at it. I was happy emphasizing other aspects of my character.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think this thing illustrates how broken Artificers are in many game settings, especially ones with scare magic items. You want to pick locks, done. You want someone to make Potions of Healing? Move over Druid, the Artificer is here. Hey, you that make meals using Cooking Utensils, you can be the sous chef, because the Artificer is the Head Chef. The Bard was always considered the Jack of All Trades. Not any longer.
Artificers are great with TOOLS but anything not involving a tool they aren't amazing at. Artificers are as problematic as the other skill monkey classes. Rogues are only problems if you let them be, no one complains that at level 10 they can never roll below say a 18 on proficient checks but no one cares. Bards can do a little bit of everything, they get half proficiency in all skills making them better at skills than others but again no one care.
Artificers can be good at lockpicking and other craft tools, and all the sudden it's an issue.
Spotlight hogging is a table by table issue. Frankly, some rogues might enjoy having someone else lockpick - that way they can stop getting blamed for missing the trap! But DMs need to recognize where people are trying to fall and see that everyone gets a chance at the thing they really want with their character. If two people are trying to do the same thing and fill the same niche, make up challenges that require BOTH of them in order to succeed. That way there is no toes being stepped on, and the coop game can seemingly function like it is a team game Vs everyone needs to be pigeonholed into a niche and no one else can try that niche.
True, but since rogue is the only class for whom DEX is a prime stat, the tools using DEX are sort-of the "rogue's thing."
Also, picking locks is an activity where success or failure depends on literally one roll, so players who want their characters to do it generally go all out. For a fighter, +3 or +4 or +5 to hit doesn't matter all that much when you've got lots of attacks and lots of rounds to take down the foe. If you only get one chance at a lock, you want that +5. Better still, you want that +18. The same goes for social checks. If you only get one chance to impress the duke or to convince the vizier, then you are going to make your character as good at CHA (Persuasion) as you can.
Speaking from experience, +18 to CHA (Deception) is way more game-breaking than +18 to DEX (Thief's Tools). :-)
I feel that "thunder" is something that should be discussed during session 0. It is part of the social contract. If I say I'm creating a character that I intend to be a master at one role, whether it be that of a diplomat or a burglar, then I wouold be anoyed if another player turns up with a character better than mine. That's just rude.
The issue in that other thread was that the player of an artificer didn't make a better lockpicker than the rogue; it was that every artificer is a better lockpick than the rogue.
Monks, Rangers, Fighters and Paladins can main Dex, Rogues are not the only ones, but I get your point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Then don't post this here, make a new one.
The +18 was assuming that they rolled a 4 on the Guidance cantrip. But even still the rogue can easily match that and beat it. Most rogue's are dex based and by level 4 you would expect an 18 or 20 dex and there will almost always be someone in the party that can cast guidance on the rogue so with that in mind a level 4 rogue can reach +20 to lock picking given the same circumstances;
Dex 20 +5
Proficiency +3
Expertise +3
Gloves +5
Guidance +1d4
The other thing which you need to consider is that (unless I'm missing something in the artificer's class), the artificer can function as a support character, making the gloves of theivery/lockpicking and then giving them to the rogue who picks locks. They don't have to function selfishly and keep all the magic items for themselves. If they made a magical battleaxe, the party would get more mileage if they give it to the barbarian. Same deal giving the gloves to the rogue.
If this sort of thing occurs, the DM can compensate - give them some puzzles where there are 2 locks to pick (in which they have to succeed on the same turn). It's like if the party has several fighters, you give them more things to fight so the glory doesn't all go to whoever rolled high on initiative!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but equipment aside it's just the rogue's Expertise vs the artificer's Tool Expertise - which is a wash, other than the rogue getting this at 1st level and the artificer only at 6th - and the rogue's Dex vs the artificer's Dex - which likely favours the rogue.
So, if gear helps both equally and the rogue probably has a better overall bonus and presumably started out as the go-to lockpicker because of having an additional bonus over the artificer for the first five levels... why wouldn't the artificer choose to give the party the best chance of success by equipping the rogue?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm aware, which is why I explicitly pointed out this puts the artificer on equal footing in terms of proficiency 5 levels after starting the campaign. It doesn't give the artificer an advantage, it only cuts down on the rogue's - most likely not making up the difference completely, because the rogue's Dex bonus probably exceeds the artificer's.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well of course, you can't compare like for like if they aren't actually like for like. Even more importantly, at level 5 the Artificer does not have the expertise feature so the rogue is at least +3 higher than the artificer. Why wouldn't the gloves go to the rogue if they were available? It would be a selfish player indeed that tried to keep them away from the groups lock / trap monkey at that point.
Actually Artificers don't get expertise until level 6 and so at level 1-4 rogues have a minimum of a 2 higher skill and at level 5 a rogue will have a 3 higher skill, not counting the fact that the rogue will likely also have a higher Dex at level 4. So there is a very good reason why the artificer should hand over the gloves.
We know that, but not until level 6, whereas the rogue has always had the option to have it from level 1. The artificer gaining expertise at level 6 only (potentially) allows the artificer to equal (not exceed) the rogue assuming that they both have the same dexterity. However artificer is int based and rogue is dex based so in all likelihood the rogue will still have a higher skill level.
Artificers have significantly better armor options than rogues. Regardless, the point is artificers are going to trail rogues as lockpicking experts for the first 5 levels of the game (assuming the rogue wants to be a lockpicking expert, and if not there isn't any thunder to steal anyway) and will only catch up at best from level 6 on.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The starting armour proficienies are completely irrelevant to the discussion.