He wanted to cast a spell with a verbal and somatic component, while looking like he was naturally speaking. He described to me how he uses Thieves cant (An ability everyone forgets exists) to say the somatic component, then succeeded on a sleight of hand check to make it look like he was using his hands while he talked.
I liked his creativity so I let him do it. I ruled that it took 4 times as long (As it takes 4 times as long to convey a message with thieves cant) but it didn't really matter because we were out of combat.
Should I let him do this again, or should it be a one time ruling that I just did on the fly?
I reckon you did just fine on the fly. Going forward, I'd scale the difficulty to the level of the spell and have him make deception and sleight of hand checks to see if people can see through both the verbal and somatic elements. I'd be harder on it in a potentially opposable situation. E.g. In front of a highly experienced mage or warlock might be at disadvantage versus random mooks for whom anything could be hocus pocus.
I agree with JCAUDM, particularly as it was out of combat, I think you covered it well on the fly.
Arguably, the verbal component of a spell are 'arcane words of power' - but perhaps that could be disguised within Thieves Cant, if the target has a less-than-fantastic insight score.
I'd just be a little careful of balance issues moving forward, to make sure it's not too powerful a feature. The somatic and verbal components aren't just there to make sure the player isn't bound or gagged, they're also to limit the power of the spell being cast without anyone knowing about it - that's why features such as the Sorcerer's Subtle Spell metamagic exists.
Perhaps increase the DC of sleight of hand checks as the level of the spell increases, or homebrew a feat they can take to make the rules around it more locked-down. It actually makes quite a lot of sense for a rogue to be able to distract a target with smooth words and hand motions while they're casting a spell on them.
I would add that it might be okay to allow him to do it at its normal casting time, if he takes Disadvantage on his Deception/Sleight of Hand checks. NPC should sometimes know Theives' Cant (sometimes a non-Rogue might know it), or might make an Arcana Check instead of an Insight Check to recognize the spell casting for what it is. You definitely made the right ruling, don't squash your players' creativity and don't let everything be too easy.
I guess rogues can now gesture with their words. Oops.
Thanks for the advice. I'll talk to the player about not really overusing this cool ability. After all, many say that the best tricks are used once, then thrown away.
Given that you were put on the spot at the time, it sounds like you made a good ruling that facilitated some cool game. :)
It might be worth noting that Thieves' Cant isn't actually a language in the same way that Common, Elvish, or Dwarven is.
It's effectively a whole collection of slang words/phrases/symbols that are known only by streetwise criminals - it's a way of disguising meanings relevant to being a criminal, within what seems like ordinary conversation to those who do not understand the cant.
Modern analogies are things like referring to the police as coppers/rozzers.
The official rules state:
During your rogue training you learned thieves’ cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation. Only another creature that knows thieves’ cant understands such messages. It takes four times longer to convey such a message than it does to speak the same idea plainly.
In addition, you understand a set of secret signs and symbols used to convey short, simple messages, such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves’ guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run.
So I have this arcane trickster.
He wanted to cast a spell with a verbal and somatic component, while looking like he was naturally speaking. He described to me how he uses Thieves cant (An ability everyone forgets exists) to say the somatic component, then succeeded on a sleight of hand check to make it look like he was using his hands while he talked.
I liked his creativity so I let him do it. I ruled that it took 4 times as long (As it takes 4 times as long to convey a message with thieves cant) but it didn't really matter because we were out of combat.
Should I let him do this again, or should it be a one time ruling that I just did on the fly?
I reckon you did just fine on the fly. Going forward, I'd scale the difficulty to the level of the spell and have him make deception and sleight of hand checks to see if people can see through both the verbal and somatic elements. I'd be harder on it in a potentially opposable situation. E.g. In front of a highly experienced mage or warlock might be at disadvantage versus random mooks for whom anything could be hocus pocus.
I agree with JCAUDM, particularly as it was out of combat, I think you covered it well on the fly.
Arguably, the verbal component of a spell are 'arcane words of power' - but perhaps that could be disguised within Thieves Cant, if the target has a less-than-fantastic insight score.
I'd just be a little careful of balance issues moving forward, to make sure it's not too powerful a feature. The somatic and verbal components aren't just there to make sure the player isn't bound or gagged, they're also to limit the power of the spell being cast without anyone knowing about it - that's why features such as the Sorcerer's Subtle Spell metamagic exists.
Perhaps increase the DC of sleight of hand checks as the level of the spell increases, or homebrew a feat they can take to make the rules around it more locked-down. It actually makes quite a lot of sense for a rogue to be able to distract a target with smooth words and hand motions while they're casting a spell on them.
I would add that it might be okay to allow him to do it at its normal casting time, if he takes Disadvantage on his Deception/Sleight of Hand checks. NPC should sometimes know Theives' Cant (sometimes a non-Rogue might know it), or might make an Arcana Check instead of an Insight Check to recognize the spell casting for what it is. You definitely made the right ruling, don't squash your players' creativity and don't let everything be too easy.
I guess rogues can now gesture with their words. Oops.
Thanks for the advice. I'll talk to the player about not really overusing this cool ability. After all, many say that the best tricks are used once, then thrown away.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersGiven that you were put on the spot at the time, it sounds like you made a good ruling that facilitated some cool game. :)
It might be worth noting that Thieves' Cant isn't actually a language in the same way that Common, Elvish, or Dwarven is.
It's effectively a whole collection of slang words/phrases/symbols that are known only by streetwise criminals - it's a way of disguising meanings relevant to being a criminal, within what seems like ordinary conversation to those who do not understand the cant.
Modern analogies are things like referring to the police as coppers/rozzers.
The official rules state:
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Other best example of TC I have seen is here: Oh, yes thieves can Cant https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/8k8g8k/oh_yes_thieves_can_cant/?st=JQLTWGCQ&sh=c2cae601