So I'm in a small campaign with two other people, I'm a fighter and there's a cleric and a bard. The bard is a home-brew Kitsune race that can shapeshift between a human and a fox. This is a secret from the rest of the party. I'm generally not a fan of identity secrets in the party. It's from experience because I did it with a changeling once and it bogged down the story massively. So I keep wanting to roll insight to try and figure it out, (the human version has fox ears) People keep accusing me of meta-gaming for trying to figure this out. I just want to go ahead and be a solid unit of a party, we haven't even left the starting town yet because everyone wants these little cryptic sub-arches in their characters.
The power-gaming thing is because I'm trying to play my fighter in a specific way because I think it'd be cool. I'm planning it out so I go Battlemaster till level five and then dip in forge cleric for a level or two. I like picking up sand and nets and hooks to do interesting things in combat. The goal is to impose as many effects on enemys that I can so they just burn their actions every turn. (Trip attack, disarming attack, menacing attack, ect.)
"You have an 8 intelligence, you're too stupid to have figured out my character or do these tactics."
So by that logic, there's no such thing as tactics for characters below a 10 INT?
First of all, it sounds like your group needs to have a session 0, or to do another one. As a group, you need to come to a consensus about how to handle one PC keeping secrets from the rest of the party. IMO, this should have been discussed before someone was allowed to play a fox/human shapeshifter and keep one of the shapes secret from the party. I have no problem with it and as a player I would be fine with it (nor do I think I'd need to know the details), but BEFORE anyone starts having secrets that affect gameplay, this needs to be cleared with the entire table so everyone can be sure they are on board with it. You seem not to be on board with it.
However, you also need to understand that the other players at the table are going to want to do things that are fun to them, and may not necessarily be to your own taste. It isn't going to fly that you try to rain on their parade just because you don't happen to like a thing they are doing. They don't get to spoil your fun, sure, but you don't get to spoil theirs either. Also, it doesn't matter if you want to roll insight or not - in D&D, you do not call for your own skill checks as a player. The DM will decide when it is appropriate for you to make an insight check and call for it. Until the DM does that, you don't get to roll insight.
But overall I think the fox person thing is something you and the rest of the players need to talk about out-of-game. You should explain to the fox-person that you have had bad experiences with shape-change sorts of party secrets in the past and you would prefer not to play this out as they are trying. See if you can reach a reasonable compromise.
As for the powergaming accusation -- I don't think it is "powergaming" to want to play a certain fight style. I also don't think that having an 8 INT means you are too stupid to come up with good fighting tactics. Lots of boxers don't strike me as being super intelligent but they are murder in the ring because they know how to use their bodies as weapons. So I have no issues with someone with an 8 INT using the character to fight intelligently. Even ogres can do what you describe and by the book they have lower than 8 INT (5).
Multi-classing into another class is an optional rule, though, and you will need to check with the DM if multi-classing is allowed in your campaign. I allow it, myself, but I do not allow dips, so if you were in my game I'd say that if you go forge cleric you will need to put at least 3 levels into it. I don't allow multi-classing to pick up proficiencies and abilities only -- I allow them when the RP determines that your character is learning another "trade" and devoting significant time to it (and it must be RPed). But that is my rule -- your DM will have his or her own rule about this. Check with the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
What is your Wisdom? If both are low like that... there could be some tactical problems... though, that doesn't stop a Wolf with an Int of 3 and a Wis of 12 from using pack tactics against enemies. Intelligence is not a measure of cunning and tactics, it is a measure of "mental acuity, information recall and analytical skill" where Wisdom is "awareness, intuition and insight". The combination of those two allows for higher level tactics. I wouldn't consider throwing sand, doing trip attacks or intimidating someone as "higher level tactics". If anything, that seems to be a more bestial approach than anything. Disarming would be a higher level tactic involving analyzing their combat strategy, but insight can make up for that.
If anything Intelligence is book smarts while Wisdom is street smarts. No one ever said that street fighters weren't dangerous, no matter whether they could read or not. Characters with high Intelligence would certainly look down on them because they didn't understand the most appropriate way to use words and the correct fork at the lord's table. But just because you didn't grow up reading lots of books didn't mean you didn't grow up reading people.
BioWizard nailed the first question, I'll just elaborate on the other one:
If seeing through disguises required INT, Insight would be an INT check. But it's WIS because you can tell that something is off - it's more of an instinct thing. As for Battlemaster, if it took a measure of INT it would be required for the class, or at least have features based off INT. It does not. No one is allowed to shut down your powers. Again, you can flavor it more like instinct - every PC is exceptional after all, and part of what makes you a hero is your ability to figure this stuff out.
"You have an 8 intelligence, you're too stupid to have figured out my character or do these tactics."
So by that logic, there's no such thing as tactics for characters below a 10 INT?
You don't need a high intelligence to function effectively on instinct. Part of the definition of instinct leans into words like fixed patters and behaviors. That's honed through practice. Repetition. Whose to say your Battlemaster hasn't practiced the various 'superiority die' things 10,000 times.
In this case, you'd be grossly effective at tactical combat. It has nothing to do with your intelligence. Some animals are extremely intelligent. They survive through that. Outwit. Cleverness. Know when to 'hold 'em or fold 'em'. Other animals get by being really good at what they do because they've done that for thousands of years. It's not a function of "brain power."
As to the bits about fox/human/insight, etc:
If being a fox, human, or both has no real impact on the other players' playstyles, leave it be. If it has no impact on the storyline or options of adventure offered by the DM, leave it be. Always consider the impact of a character's choices on the overall game. If it's just "them being them", with no real harm or foul, all is good. Secrets are fine so long as they don't impede fun. If they do and that player won't back off, it's not about secrets or "edge lording" or being unique anymore. It's simply about being selfish - which isn't recommended in a cooperative game.
Everybody has their own version of what they think is fun and engaging. Sometimes these details can slow things down or become what others see as overly complex. BUT as long as it isn't harmful to others or ruining another person's fun, you should try to tolerate it. Best to have a talk with the players and GM about such things.
Nothing wrong with having a plan and multiclassing. However, the plan might change when you play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The problem is that I've run into her as a fox and as a person now, and it was becoming hard to remember which interactions were as a person or fox. She also stole a map from me as a fox, so there's that. Ironically, I think it eliminates opportunities for meta-gaming when the whole party us on the same page. We don't have to stop every five minutes with "nah, you don't know that, only I do/ you weren't there for that." Ect.
You should talk to her about how the constant book-keeping of which form she was in when she did this or that is frustrating you and could we please just get the RP over with about how the party finds out she can shape-shift so you don't have to do the mental acrobatics anymore. Maybe she will be understanding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Last time I was in this kind of situation, it was in shadowrun. I was playing a cat shaman, who needed to keep their totem secret since the secret was the source of their power. I even hedged my bets with a backstory that my character was a childhood friend of the other characters (with the DM's knowledge and permission) so that they should be ok with my being secretive and to have accepted that and my character as a friend despite that.
One of the other players, though, decided he would have none of this and since my character was keeping secrets from the party, I must therefore be conspiring against the party. I ended up leaving the campaign over it.
OP:
1) Why is this so important to you?
2) Are you giving the other characters in the party the same level of scrutiny? How about NPC's? If not, why not?
3) Do you tell the party everything about your character, whether they want to hear it or not? Do you keep lists of their equipment or something? Have you given them a copy of your equipment list, recited skill training, etc? Safe bet there are things about your character that you have not openly disclosed. And no one (including myself) is pressuring you to do so.
It really does sound like you are chasing your personal angst regarding party secrets rather than actually playing your character in character. Moreover, you are doing so in a way that is not really furthering anything.
I agree with this.
It would seem that your primary issue with the Kitsune is from a player perspective, not a character perspective. That leans more into metagaming as it not a character conflict.
Ha, no man you are fine. I guess this person is just really sensitive about you doing an insight check is all.
From what I’m gathering this group, including the DM are a bit new. I’d ask the DM if he has any dungeons made up he can run. Sounds like you put some thought into your Fighter build (that bit about 8 intelligence made me laugh) and are looking to put in the hurt on some High CRs, while the others are content with dinking around the starting town and being a fox-man.
It is totally metagaming. Unless you catch them in the act or they drop a clanger there is nothing in what you have said that is suspicious. Hell they could even explain it away as druidic shapeshifting or a magic spell and your character wouldn’t know any different.
It also suggests to me that you have a lack of role playing experience when you say things like you can’t separate what your character knows, and so wants everyone to tell you absolutely everything so that you don’t have to worry about what your character knows. Stop trying to micromanage everything you and the other players do, and get on with having fun.
I don't care about knowing absolutely everything about her character. She's just playing so close to her character that it's sacrificing gameplay. We were in a bossfight with about a dozen mercenaries and a boss mercenary, she didn't help until the last minute when the cleric and I were about to die because "Her character doesn't know you well enough to get involved."
I get that she's trying to do a "cautious recluse that has to warm up to you" thing, but I'm hoping that once the secret is out, there won't be so much tension in the "party". We're not even really a party yet.
We're supposed to be a party, but nobody is making any effort to actually find each other. The DM has had us run into each other like five times now, and it's always my character that engages the other two. "My character doesn't know you well enough to go with you."
Being willing to adventure is like, the SOLE prerequisite for being an adventurer.
We're supposed to be a party, but nobody is making any effort to actually find each other. The DM has had us run into each other like five times now, and it's always my character that engages the other two. "My character doesn't know you well enough to go with you."
Being willing to adventure is like, the SOLE prerequisite for being an adventurer.
This sounds like each player is far more interested in RPing their own personal characters than actually following an adventure as a party.
I don't care about knowing absolutely everything about her character. She's just playing so close to her character that it's sacrificing gameplay. We were in a bossfight with about a dozen mercenaries and a boss mercenary, she didn't help until the last minute when the cleric and I were about to die because "Her character doesn't know you well enough to get involved."
I get that she's trying to do a "cautious recluse that has to warm up to you" thing, but I'm hoping that once the secret is out, there won't be so much tension in the "party". We're not even really a party yet.
We're supposed to be a party, but nobody is making any effort to actually find each other. The DM has had us run into each other like five times now, and it's always my character that engages the other two. "My character doesn't know you well enough to go with you."
Being willing to adventure is like, the SOLE prerequisite for being an adventurer.
That is something very different and is likely purely down to being a group of inexperienced, new players and DM. Even so, It sounds like you aren’t actually an adventuring party as yet and so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the kitsune to reveal the fact to you. Think of it this way, you (personally not your dnd character) do your food shop in the same store every week and bump into the same person there a few times. Do you decide that they are your new best friend and start telling them all your deepest secrets? No of course not. The DM needs to give you guys a reason to work together, and should probably have a sit down and explain to everyone what dnd is.
I don't care about knowing absolutely everything about her character. She's just playing so close to her character that it's sacrificing gameplay. We were in a bossfight with about a dozen mercenaries and a boss mercenary, she didn't help until the last minute when the cleric and I were about to die because "Her character doesn't know you well enough to get involved."
I get that she's trying to do a "cautious recluse that has to warm up to you" thing, but I'm hoping that once the secret is out, there won't be so much tension in the "party". We're not even really a party yet.
We're supposed to be a party, but nobody is making any effort to actually find each other. The DM has had us run into each other like five times now, and it's always my character that engages the other two. "My character doesn't know you well enough to go with you."
Being willing to adventure is like, the SOLE prerequisite for being an adventurer.
For sure man. I completely agree with you.
There is a very basis underlying assumption with ANY game of D&D- that the player characters are adventurers, meaning people of exceptional skill and bravery whose profession is challenging monsters and villains for gold, glory, and goodness.
Also, there is an assumption that these adventurous PCs have formed an alliance of some sort to further their chances of success. They don’t necessarily need to be friends, it could be a business like relationship, but the assumption is they work together and defend each other
anyone violating this most basic D&D contract “because that is what their character would do” is using the Wangrod Defense
I don't care about knowing absolutely everything about her character. She's just playing so close to her character that it's sacrificing gameplay. We were in a bossfight with about a dozen mercenaries and a boss mercenary, she didn't help until the last minute when the cleric and I were about to die because "Her character doesn't know you well enough to get involved."
I get that she's trying to do a "cautious recluse that has to warm up to you" thing, but I'm hoping that once the secret is out, there won't be so much tension in the "party". We're not even really a party yet.
We're supposed to be a party, but nobody is making any effort to actually find each other. The DM has had us run into each other like five times now, and it's always my character that engages the other two. "My character doesn't know you well enough to go with you."
Being willing to adventure is like, the SOLE prerequisite for being an adventurer.
For sure man. I completely agree with you.
There is a very basis underlying assumption with ANY game of D&D- that the player characters are adventurers, meaning people of exceptional skill and bravery whose profession is challenging monsters and villains for gold, glory, and goodness.
Also, there is an assumption that these adventurous PCs have formed an alliance of some sort to further their chances of success. They don’t necessarily need to be friends, it could be a business like relationship, but the assumption is they work together and defend each other
anyone violating this most basic D&D contract “because that is what their character would do” is using the Wangrod Defense
(Not a bad Covile citation, eh BioWizard?)
except from the sound of it, The PCs have not been correctly introduced and acutally made a party. Sure the players are all at the same table, but their in game characters still need a reason to join up with each other.
This sounds like a group that sorely needs a Session 0.
FYI - just because my Gnome Artificer has been tasked with solving a mystery, does not mean I trust or want to work with the paladin and bard that have been given the same assignment.
Seems like a group of people who need and out of game discussion about expectations, because you absolutely can do and have a fun game of the above scenario. Case, in one of my RPG groups, I had said at the end of a session, my character was going to research and develop his new skill (something gotten on a level up) that would put him out of commission for the night. The next session, the Keeper forgot this and had a night time "Ambush" we had to deal with - well how else am I supposed to play a scientist who just got turned into a fox other than literally not helping deal with the vampires attacking innocents and spending time understanding his new fox form.
The difference. my firends and keeper were fine with this and agreed on my RP - it seems like you expect everyone to game and RP like you would, which is very unfair when you yourself and badgering them.
I'll offer a few points based on 40yrs of D&D, 35 of which have been as DM.
In the last 10 years, my player group averages 8 players. That gives me a lot of characters to see, juggle, help manage, be introduced to, accommodate, and kill.
Any character that is designed with an element of, "I have a hard time working with others" is a flawed character from the start.
Any player that will steal from you isn't doing it because of their character. They're doing it because they (the player) think it's fun to steal from you. They just "mask it" via a 'shifty rogue', or 'misunderstood fox'.
Any player that puts their PC's background, back story, or "reason for being" ahead of the concept of, "I'm an adventurer. I adventure because there's adventure to be had" isn't "being thorough." They aren't "fleshing out their character". They are being difficult and selfish.
Some players like nuke everything wizards. Some like pacifist Clerics. Some like ninja monks, others, misunderstood and edgy tiefling sorcerers. All are viable and bring great depth to an adventuring party. Disagreements at the table are bound to happen. Once a disagreement between players (not characters) - as a result of those character choices - results in the pacing of the game slowing down or creating more work for the DM, you're doing it wrong. Period.
I'll offer a few points based on 40yrs of D&D, 35 of which have been as DM.
In the last 10 years, my player group averages 8 players. That gives me a lot of characters to see, juggle, help manage, be introduced to, accommodate, and kill.
Any character that is designed with an element of, "I have a hard time working with others" is a flawed character from the start.
Any player that will steal from you isn't doing it because of their character. They're doing it because they (the player) think it's fun to steal from you. They just "mask it" via a 'shifty rogue', or 'misunderstood fox'.
Any player that puts their PC's background, back story, or "reason for being" ahead of the concept of, "I'm an adventurer. I adventure because there's adventure to be had" isn't "being thorough." They aren't "fleshing out their character". They are being difficult and selfish.
Some players like nuke everything wizards. Some like pacifist Clerics. Some like ninja monks, others, misunderstood and edgy tiefling sorcerers. All are viable and bring great depth to an adventuring party. Disagreements at the table are bound to happen. Once a disagreement between players (not characters) - as a result of those character choices - results in the pacing of the game slowing down or creating more work for the DM, you're doing it wrong. Period.
As someone with less experience than that, but plenty of years of story development and character creation as theatre person:
Nope - all of these are situational, and if you are playing with strangers this might be true. However if this is a group of friends all of these are viable options for characters.
Again I reference my "got transformed into a fox" session - NONE of my friends were mad about that, they new I was playing out the exact scenario I had explained the evening prior, and frankly that LOVED the fact that I (as the most useful damage dealer in the group at the time) was trapped in a fox and couldn't just sniper rifle all of the vamps. I had an entire session that was "it what my character would do" and nothing was harmful or detrimental even though in terms of "game mechanics" it was sub-optimal for me to continue being a fox and not transform back immediately at that start of the session.
As said, @CorboneyourCob, I think you should message the group and mention the need for an out of D&D talk about the characters and what everyone ones out of the game because this is not a "wangrod" player, or "purposefully harmful" play - this is people having different concepts of what a game should be.
Food for thought - should adventures really just trust everyone they meet that is also an adventurer for the sake of moving foreword? Or should there be a reason for all of those people to actually work together.
I'll offer a few points based on 40yrs of D&D, 35 of which have been as DM.
In the last 10 years, my player group averages 8 players. That gives me a lot of characters to see, juggle, help manage, be introduced to, accommodate, and kill.
Any character that is designed with an element of, "I have a hard time working with others" is a flawed character from the start.
Any player that will steal from you isn't doing it because of their character. They're doing it because they (the player) think it's fun to steal from you. They just "mask it" via a 'shifty rogue', or 'misunderstood fox'.
Any player that puts their PC's background, back story, or "reason for being" ahead of the concept of, "I'm an adventurer. I adventure because there's adventure to be had" isn't "being thorough." They aren't "fleshing out their character". They are being difficult and selfish.
Some players like nuke everything wizards. Some like pacifist Clerics. Some like ninja monks, others, misunderstood and edgy tiefling sorcerers. All are viable and bring great depth to an adventuring party. Disagreements at the table are bound to happen. Once a disagreement between players (not characters) - as a result of those character choices - results in the pacing of the game slowing down or creating more work for the DM, you're doing it wrong. Period.
As someone with less experience than that, but plenty of years of story development and character creation as theatre person:
Nope - all of these are situational, and if you are playing with strangers this might be true. However if this is a group of friends all of these are viable options for characters.
(...)
Food for thought - should adventures really just trust everyone they meet that is also an adventurer for the sake of moving foreword? Or should there be a reason for all of those people to actually work together.
Ad1. That viability is also anecdotal and situational. Plenty of stories on the internet of "good friends" who fell apart as D&D groups ;)
Ad2. There has to be a middle ground for that. Yes, verisimilitude is important. But yes, a specific type of social contract that warrants that the group forms a party is important as well. It needs work both from the DM AND the players. You can't just create a character who doesn't want or need anybody or even doesn't want adventuring, then throw it at the DM and say "make it work, not my problem, I will act according to what my character would do". The truth is that not every character will be a good addition to an adventuring party and in that case the DM has to step in and if they tried but came up empty, they need to say frankly that based on the personality and backstory there is no compelling and realistic way of merging that character with the group. So either change the backstory and/or personality a bit so that it gives some leeway or change the character.
It's on the DM to create a scenario that will link the players sufficiently so that they can start working together. It's on the players to give the DM the tools for that with their backstories and personalities.
As for the OP - I will say this. Having played with both types of players, it's disruptive from both sides. Yes, someone who is harboring a benign secret just for the sake of keeping it gets irritating at some point. The amount of eye rolling only accumulates. But players who demand Insight check in situations based on players knowledge are equally disruptive and undesired. Especially since you flat out admitted why you demand those Insight checks. Two wrongs and all that. The situation needs to be worked out outside of the game.
As for multiclassing, I would allow that easily unless you spring that without any kind of groundwork. It's one thing to multiclass from a Ranger to Fighter or from a Paladin to a Fighter but if your character has never had any kind of notion of turning to some higher power during adventuring, it may be a hard sell for multiclass with a Forge Cleric. So if you convince the DM to let you do that, make sure to lay the groundwork.
I'll offer a few points based on 40yrs of D&D, 35 of which have been as DM.
In the last 10 years, my player group averages 8 players. That gives me a lot of characters to see, juggle, help manage, be introduced to, accommodate, and kill.
Any character that is designed with an element of, "I have a hard time working with others" is a flawed character from the start.
Any player that will steal from you isn't doing it because of their character. They're doing it because they (the player) think it's fun to steal from you. They just "mask it" via a 'shifty rogue', or 'misunderstood fox'.
Any player that puts their PC's background, back story, or "reason for being" ahead of the concept of, "I'm an adventurer. I adventure because there's adventure to be had" isn't "being thorough." They aren't "fleshing out their character". They are being difficult and selfish.
Some players like nuke everything wizards. Some like pacifist Clerics. Some like ninja monks, others, misunderstood and edgy tiefling sorcerers. All are viable and bring great depth to an adventuring party. Disagreements at the table are bound to happen. Once a disagreement between players (not characters) - as a result of those character choices - results in the pacing of the game slowing down or creating more work for the DM, you're doing it wrong. Period.
As someone with less experience than that, but plenty of years of story development and character creation as theatre person:
Nope - all of these are situational, and if you are playing with strangers this might be true. However if this is a group of friends all of these are viable options for characters.
Again I reference my "got transformed into a fox" session - NONE of my friends were mad about that, they new I was playing out the exact scenario I had explained the evening prior, and frankly that LOVED the fact that I (as the most useful damage dealer in the group at the time) was trapped in a fox and couldn't just sniper rifle all of the vamps. I had an entire session that was "it what my character would do" and nothing was harmful or detrimental even though in terms of "game mechanics" it was sub-optimal for me to continue being a fox and not transform back immediately at that start of the session.
As said, @CorboneyourCob, I think you should message the group and mention the need for an out of D&D talk about the characters and what everyone ones out of the game because this is not a "wangrod" player, or "purposefully harmful" play - this is people having different concepts of what a game should be.
Food for thought - should adventures really just trust everyone they meet that is also an adventurer for the sake of moving foreword? Or should there be a reason for all of those people to actually work together.
We'll just agree to disagree then. No worries there. You seem (and I'll admit if I'm wrong here) to be approaching it from a story development/theatre person point of view. I'm approaching it from purely a GAME point of view. A co-operative game.
I can't tell you how many times someone has come to the table with acting/theatre/Matt Mercer/cast of Critical Role chops that did nothing but cause issues from the get-go. I don't care how well versed you are in latin and how well you can roleplay, if you're resistant to going on adventures with the rest of your party, you're being a pain in the ass. As to this (Food for thought - should adventures really just trust everyone they meet that is also an adventurer for the sake of moving foreword? Or should there be a reason for all of those people to actually work together.) part:
Going on adventures with other adventurers simply for the sake of moving forward IS the reason to work together..
So I'm in a small campaign with two other people, I'm a fighter and there's a cleric and a bard. The bard is a home-brew Kitsune race that can shapeshift between a human and a fox. This is a secret from the rest of the party. I'm generally not a fan of identity secrets in the party. It's from experience because I did it with a changeling once and it bogged down the story massively. So I keep wanting to roll insight to try and figure it out, (the human version has fox ears) People keep accusing me of meta-gaming for trying to figure this out. I just want to go ahead and be a solid unit of a party, we haven't even left the starting town yet because everyone wants these little cryptic sub-arches in their characters.
The power-gaming thing is because I'm trying to play my fighter in a specific way because I think it'd be cool. I'm planning it out so I go Battlemaster till level five and then dip in forge cleric for a level or two. I like picking up sand and nets and hooks to do interesting things in combat. The goal is to impose as many effects on enemys that I can so they just burn their actions every turn. (Trip attack, disarming attack, menacing attack, ect.)
"You have an 8 intelligence, you're too stupid to have figured out my character or do these tactics."
So by that logic, there's no such thing as tactics for characters below a 10 INT?
First of all, it sounds like your group needs to have a session 0, or to do another one. As a group, you need to come to a consensus about how to handle one PC keeping secrets from the rest of the party. IMO, this should have been discussed before someone was allowed to play a fox/human shapeshifter and keep one of the shapes secret from the party. I have no problem with it and as a player I would be fine with it (nor do I think I'd need to know the details), but BEFORE anyone starts having secrets that affect gameplay, this needs to be cleared with the entire table so everyone can be sure they are on board with it. You seem not to be on board with it.
However, you also need to understand that the other players at the table are going to want to do things that are fun to them, and may not necessarily be to your own taste. It isn't going to fly that you try to rain on their parade just because you don't happen to like a thing they are doing. They don't get to spoil your fun, sure, but you don't get to spoil theirs either. Also, it doesn't matter if you want to roll insight or not - in D&D, you do not call for your own skill checks as a player. The DM will decide when it is appropriate for you to make an insight check and call for it. Until the DM does that, you don't get to roll insight.
But overall I think the fox person thing is something you and the rest of the players need to talk about out-of-game. You should explain to the fox-person that you have had bad experiences with shape-change sorts of party secrets in the past and you would prefer not to play this out as they are trying. See if you can reach a reasonable compromise.
As for the powergaming accusation -- I don't think it is "powergaming" to want to play a certain fight style. I also don't think that having an 8 INT means you are too stupid to come up with good fighting tactics. Lots of boxers don't strike me as being super intelligent but they are murder in the ring because they know how to use their bodies as weapons. So I have no issues with someone with an 8 INT using the character to fight intelligently. Even ogres can do what you describe and by the book they have lower than 8 INT (5).
Multi-classing into another class is an optional rule, though, and you will need to check with the DM if multi-classing is allowed in your campaign. I allow it, myself, but I do not allow dips, so if you were in my game I'd say that if you go forge cleric you will need to put at least 3 levels into it. I don't allow multi-classing to pick up proficiencies and abilities only -- I allow them when the RP determines that your character is learning another "trade" and devoting significant time to it (and it must be RPed). But that is my rule -- your DM will have his or her own rule about this. Check with the DM.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
What is your Wisdom? If both are low like that... there could be some tactical problems... though, that doesn't stop a Wolf with an Int of 3 and a Wis of 12 from using pack tactics against enemies. Intelligence is not a measure of cunning and tactics, it is a measure of "mental acuity, information recall and analytical skill" where Wisdom is "awareness, intuition and insight". The combination of those two allows for higher level tactics. I wouldn't consider throwing sand, doing trip attacks or intimidating someone as "higher level tactics". If anything, that seems to be a more bestial approach than anything. Disarming would be a higher level tactic involving analyzing their combat strategy, but insight can make up for that.
If anything Intelligence is book smarts while Wisdom is street smarts. No one ever said that street fighters weren't dangerous, no matter whether they could read or not. Characters with high Intelligence would certainly look down on them because they didn't understand the most appropriate way to use words and the correct fork at the lord's table. But just because you didn't grow up reading lots of books didn't mean you didn't grow up reading people.
BioWizard nailed the first question, I'll just elaborate on the other one:
If seeing through disguises required INT, Insight would be an INT check. But it's WIS because you can tell that something is off - it's more of an instinct thing. As for Battlemaster, if it took a measure of INT it would be required for the class, or at least have features based off INT. It does not. No one is allowed to shut down your powers. Again, you can flavor it more like instinct - every PC is exceptional after all, and part of what makes you a hero is your ability to figure this stuff out.
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
You don't need a high intelligence to function effectively on instinct. Part of the definition of instinct leans into words like fixed patters and behaviors. That's honed through practice. Repetition. Whose to say your Battlemaster hasn't practiced the various 'superiority die' things 10,000 times.
In this case, you'd be grossly effective at tactical combat. It has nothing to do with your intelligence. Some animals are extremely intelligent. They survive through that. Outwit. Cleverness. Know when to 'hold 'em or fold 'em'. Other animals get by being really good at what they do because they've done that for thousands of years. It's not a function of "brain power."
As to the bits about fox/human/insight, etc:
If being a fox, human, or both has no real impact on the other players' playstyles, leave it be. If it has no impact on the storyline or options of adventure offered by the DM, leave it be. Always consider the impact of a character's choices on the overall game. If it's just "them being them", with no real harm or foul, all is good. Secrets are fine so long as they don't impede fun. If they do and that player won't back off, it's not about secrets or "edge lording" or being unique anymore. It's simply about being selfish - which isn't recommended in a cooperative game.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Everybody has their own version of what they think is fun and engaging. Sometimes these details can slow things down or become what others see as overly complex. BUT as long as it isn't harmful to others or ruining another person's fun, you should try to tolerate it. Best to have a talk with the players and GM about such things.
Nothing wrong with having a plan and multiclassing. However, the plan might change when you play.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The problem is that I've run into her as a fox and as a person now, and it was becoming hard to remember which interactions were as a person or fox. She also stole a map from me as a fox, so there's that. Ironically, I think it eliminates opportunities for meta-gaming when the whole party us on the same page. We don't have to stop every five minutes with "nah, you don't know that, only I do/ you weren't there for that." Ect.
You should talk to her about how the constant book-keeping of which form she was in when she did this or that is frustrating you and could we please just get the RP over with about how the party finds out she can shape-shift so you don't have to do the mental acrobatics anymore. Maybe she will be understanding.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with this.
It would seem that your primary issue with the Kitsune is from a player perspective, not a character perspective. That leans more into metagaming as it not a character conflict.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ha, no man you are fine. I guess this person is just really sensitive about you doing an insight check is all.
From what I’m gathering this group, including the DM are a bit new. I’d ask the DM if he has any dungeons made up he can run. Sounds like you put some thought into your Fighter build (that bit about 8 intelligence made me laugh) and are looking to put in the hurt on some High CRs, while the others are content with dinking around the starting town and being a fox-man.
It is totally metagaming. Unless you catch them in the act or they drop a clanger there is nothing in what you have said that is suspicious. Hell they could even explain it away as druidic shapeshifting or a magic spell and your character wouldn’t know any different.
It also suggests to me that you have a lack of role playing experience when you say things like you can’t separate what your character knows, and so wants everyone to tell you absolutely everything so that you don’t have to worry about what your character knows. Stop trying to micromanage everything you and the other players do, and get on with having fun.
I don't care about knowing absolutely everything about her character. She's just playing so close to her character that it's sacrificing gameplay. We were in a bossfight with about a dozen mercenaries and a boss mercenary, she didn't help until the last minute when the cleric and I were about to die because "Her character doesn't know you well enough to get involved."
I get that she's trying to do a "cautious recluse that has to warm up to you" thing, but I'm hoping that once the secret is out, there won't be so much tension in the "party". We're not even really a party yet.
We're supposed to be a party, but nobody is making any effort to actually find each other. The DM has had us run into each other like five times now, and it's always my character that engages the other two. "My character doesn't know you well enough to go with you."
Being willing to adventure is like, the SOLE prerequisite for being an adventurer.
This sounds like each player is far more interested in RPing their own personal characters than actually following an adventure as a party.
That is something very different and is likely purely down to being a group of inexperienced, new players and DM. Even so, It sounds like you aren’t actually an adventuring party as yet and so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the kitsune to reveal the fact to you. Think of it this way, you (personally not your dnd character) do your food shop in the same store every week and bump into the same person there a few times. Do you decide that they are your new best friend and start telling them all your deepest secrets? No of course not. The DM needs to give you guys a reason to work together, and should probably have a sit down and explain to everyone what dnd is.
For sure man. I completely agree with you.
There is a very basis underlying assumption with ANY game of D&D- that the player characters are adventurers, meaning people of exceptional skill and bravery whose profession is challenging monsters and villains for gold, glory, and goodness.
Also, there is an assumption that these adventurous PCs have formed an alliance of some sort to further their chances of success. They don’t necessarily need to be friends, it could be a business like relationship, but the assumption is they work together and defend each other
anyone violating this most basic D&D contract “because that is what their character would do” is using the Wangrod Defense
(Not a bad Colville citation, eh BioWizard?)
except from the sound of it, The PCs have not been correctly introduced and acutally made a party. Sure the players are all at the same table, but their in game characters still need a reason to join up with each other.
This sounds like a group that sorely needs a Session 0.
FYI - just because my Gnome Artificer has been tasked with solving a mystery, does not mean I trust or want to work with the paladin and bard that have been given the same assignment.
Seems like a group of people who need and out of game discussion about expectations, because you absolutely can do and have a fun game of the above scenario. Case, in one of my RPG groups, I had said at the end of a session, my character was going to research and develop his new skill (something gotten on a level up) that would put him out of commission for the night. The next session, the Keeper forgot this and had a night time "Ambush" we had to deal with - well how else am I supposed to play a scientist who just got turned into a fox other than literally not helping deal with the vampires attacking innocents and spending time understanding his new fox form.
The difference. my firends and keeper were fine with this and agreed on my RP - it seems like you expect everyone to game and RP like you would, which is very unfair when you yourself and badgering them.
I'll offer a few points based on 40yrs of D&D, 35 of which have been as DM.
In the last 10 years, my player group averages 8 players. That gives me a lot of characters to see, juggle, help manage, be introduced to, accommodate, and kill.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
As someone with less experience than that, but plenty of years of story development and character creation as theatre person:
Nope - all of these are situational, and if you are playing with strangers this might be true. However if this is a group of friends all of these are viable options for characters.
Again I reference my "got transformed into a fox" session - NONE of my friends were mad about that, they new I was playing out the exact scenario I had explained the evening prior, and frankly that LOVED the fact that I (as the most useful damage dealer in the group at the time) was trapped in a fox and couldn't just sniper rifle all of the vamps. I had an entire session that was "it what my character would do" and nothing was harmful or detrimental even though in terms of "game mechanics" it was sub-optimal for me to continue being a fox and not transform back immediately at that start of the session.
As said, @CorboneyourCob, I think you should message the group and mention the need for an out of D&D talk about the characters and what everyone ones out of the game because this is not a "wangrod" player, or "purposefully harmful" play - this is people having different concepts of what a game should be.
Food for thought - should adventures really just trust everyone they meet that is also an adventurer for the sake of moving foreword? Or should there be a reason for all of those people to actually work together.
Ad1. That viability is also anecdotal and situational. Plenty of stories on the internet of "good friends" who fell apart as D&D groups ;)
Ad2. There has to be a middle ground for that. Yes, verisimilitude is important. But yes, a specific type of social contract that warrants that the group forms a party is important as well. It needs work both from the DM AND the players. You can't just create a character who doesn't want or need anybody or even doesn't want adventuring, then throw it at the DM and say "make it work, not my problem, I will act according to what my character would do". The truth is that not every character will be a good addition to an adventuring party and in that case the DM has to step in and if they tried but came up empty, they need to say frankly that based on the personality and backstory there is no compelling and realistic way of merging that character with the group. So either change the backstory and/or personality a bit so that it gives some leeway or change the character.
It's on the DM to create a scenario that will link the players sufficiently so that they can start working together. It's on the players to give the DM the tools for that with their backstories and personalities.
As for the OP - I will say this. Having played with both types of players, it's disruptive from both sides. Yes, someone who is harboring a benign secret just for the sake of keeping it gets irritating at some point. The amount of eye rolling only accumulates. But players who demand Insight check in situations based on players knowledge are equally disruptive and undesired. Especially since you flat out admitted why you demand those Insight checks. Two wrongs and all that. The situation needs to be worked out outside of the game.
As for multiclassing, I would allow that easily unless you spring that without any kind of groundwork. It's one thing to multiclass from a Ranger to Fighter or from a Paladin to a Fighter but if your character has never had any kind of notion of turning to some higher power during adventuring, it may be a hard sell for multiclass with a Forge Cleric. So if you convince the DM to let you do that, make sure to lay the groundwork.
We'll just agree to disagree then. No worries there. You seem (and I'll admit if I'm wrong here) to be approaching it from a story development/theatre person point of view. I'm approaching it from purely a GAME point of view. A co-operative game.
I can't tell you how many times someone has come to the table with acting/theatre/Matt Mercer/cast of Critical Role chops that did nothing but cause issues from the get-go. I don't care how well versed you are in latin and how well you can roleplay, if you're resistant to going on adventures with the rest of your party, you're being a pain in the ass. As to this (Food for thought - should adventures really just trust everyone they meet that is also an adventurer for the sake of moving foreword? Or should there be a reason for all of those people to actually work together.) part:
Going on adventures with other adventurers simply for the sake of moving forward IS the reason to work together..
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans