In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
Thief is definitely not of broad appeal, however, recently I DMed a one-shot with a thief rogue and the player was really impressed with the subclass because I gave them a bunch of potions and scrolls. Acid and Alhemist's Fire are a waste of time, but a scroll of Dispel Magic, or a Potion of Speed are definitely powerful uses of a bonus action.
In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
Thief is definitely not of broad appeal, however, recently I DMed a one-shot with a thief rogue and the player was really impressed with the subclass because I gave them a bunch of potions and scrolls. Acid and Alhemist's Fire are a waste of time, but a scroll of Dispel Magic, or a Potion of Speed are definitely powerful uses of a bonus action.
The operative part of that is "[you] gave"; it's extremely dependent on the DM queueing up magic items to enable it, and so the performance is going to swing wildly between tables.
In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
Thief is definitely not of broad appeal, however, recently I DMed a one-shot with a thief rogue and the player was really impressed with the subclass because I gave them a bunch of potions and scrolls. Acid and Alhemist's Fire are a waste of time, but a scroll of Dispel Magic, or a Potion of Speed are definitely powerful uses of a bonus action.
The operative part of that is "[you] gave"; it's extremely dependent on the DM queueing up magic items to enable it, and so the performance is going to swing wildly between tables.
If you look at the magic item tables they are chocked full of consumables. It's one of those odd things where people just don't play the way the designers expected the game to be played. Just like how some classes are OP when the party only has 1 encounter per day, or some classes are weak if you only ever have boss fights against a solo enemy.
In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
Thief is definitely not of broad appeal, however, recently I DMed a one-shot with a thief rogue and the player was really impressed with the subclass because I gave them a bunch of potions and scrolls. Acid and Alhemist's Fire are a waste of time, but a scroll of Dispel Magic, or a Potion of Speed are definitely powerful uses of a bonus action.
The operative part of that is "[you] gave"; it's extremely dependent on the DM queueing up magic items to enable it, and so the performance is going to swing wildly between tables.
If you look at the magic item tables they are chocked full of consumables. It's one of those odd things where people just don't play the way the designers expected the game to be played. Just like how some classes are OP when the party only has 1 encounter per day, or some classes are weak if you only ever have boss fights against a solo enemy.
I'm not saying it's impossible or even particularly unrealistic, just that it's going to be very inconsistent, and that's not something you want from a class feature, particularly the opening feature of a subclass.
In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the class/subclass features should be self contained, especially the 3rd level feature. And I was leaving out magic items because those are way more DM dependent than standard gear.
The thief subclass could use work. But I was specifically responding to the ability to get standard gear in relation to a response in the summon thread where the same issue (getting costly M components while in a dungeon) where it was posited that the spellcaster could plan ahead and get it prior to obtaining the level to get that spell is an option. edit: PsyrenXY’s response #40 specifically in that thread. Was curious why it’s ok for a caster to prepare components ahead of time but thieves can’t with gear.
edit: and I’m all for the Thief getting something else or better at 3rd
All adventures don’t have to happen in a city. Do you not have any downtime activities that take place in or near a city or town? Are you forever in the wilderness from levels 1 to 20 with no civilization? Or ever have to restock or recuperate after an earlier adventure? My group doesn’t play published adventures so if this is common in those I’ve had no experience with it
I don’t recall of it was you or another that pointed out in the summoning spell thread, when costly components was at issue, that you could plan ahead and have said components on hand in preparation of gaining the level to get the spell in question. Couldn’t a rogue do the same with standard adventuring gear?
I never said anything about "levels 1 to 20." But you could easily not have anything worth using Fast Hands with when you get your Thief subclass. That's not going to be a feel-good moment for the rogue player when everyone else has their new toys automatically.
wizard gets some free spells each level. seems like one fix would be to (officially in writing) provide a thief/rogue with a similar number of consumables each level. call it a result of downtime pickpocket practice or previously acquired trinkets turning out to have a use after all or bring your own plausibility. give a pick-or-roll list with a tame spread of potions and wands. viola.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I kinda wish they'd add a "steal stuff from enemies in combat" features to Thief Rogue, as if you're in a campaign without much infiltration Thief feels not great.
I kinda wish they'd add a "steal stuff from enemies in combat" features to Thief Rogue, as if you're in a campaign without much infiltration Thief feels not great.
I agree with that. Something would help. A barbarian in a courtly/political intrigue game feels not great but they got some utility in the UA so not completely useless.
I kinda wish they'd add a "steal stuff from enemies in combat" features to Thief Rogue, as if you're in a campaign without much infiltration Thief feels not great.
There is a steal stuff from enemies in combat feature; that's what using fast hands for sleight of hand is. It's just that monsters don't generally have a listed inventory so it doesn't do anything.
I kinda wish they'd add a "steal stuff from enemies in combat" features to Thief Rogue, as if you're in a campaign without much infiltration Thief feels not great.
There is a steal stuff from enemies in combat feature; that's what using fast hands for sleight of hand is. It's just that monsters don't generally have a listed inventory so it doesn't do anything.
Since you bring it up, I find the wording of that ability interesting - it suggests that Sleight of Hand will be used to disarm traps in 2024 rather than Thief Tool proficiency, similar to Baldurs Gate 3 (and of course, being proficient in both = advantage per the Rules Glossary.)
The other problem is that stealing stuff in combat is only relevant if it would actually make a difference to have it in combat, rather than three rounds later when looting the bodies, and I think most DMs will be leery of permitting stuff like "I steal the mage's spell component pouch".
The other problem is that stealing stuff in combat is only relevant if it would actually make a difference to have it in combat, rather than three rounds later when looting the bodies, and I think most DMs will be leery of permitting stuff like "I steal the mage's spell component pouch".
well, then common MM entries should include consumable usage. maybe something like a "Recharge 6" power for whatever group when the group includes five or more baddies. a bandit might drink a stolen vial of polymorph: bear, gain multiple resistances from a shield trinket, or toss homemade blinding powder into a crowd. a kobold might drink a health pot, throw jars of oil, or gain temporary AC from a charmed scale. a goblin might down theirs as a bonus action, but be equally likely to gain brute strength or become an immobile balloon full of poison. whatever. the point is that if monsters used more consumables, then a.) consumable-use would become normalized for players as well, b.) pick-pocketing might be incentivized (especially if defeated foes narratively come with empty, broken, or spoiled consumables), and c.) the recharge power's examples provide a sort of loot list for dms who need one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Given they’ve decided real spell slots are too complex for monster/NPC stat blocks, I doubt they’ll incorporate consumables into them.
You also run into the problem that NPC abilities are balanced for NPCs, so the fact that an NPC is theoretically using a consumable object does not mean you want to let PCs have that object (you can avoid this by only giving NPCs abilities you don't mind PCs stealing... but that probably still means combat steal is useless).
Given they’ve decided real spell slots are too complex for monster/NPC stat blocks, I doubt they’ll incorporate consumables into them.
You also run into the problem that NPC abilities are balanced for NPCs, so the fact that an NPC is theoretically using a consumable object does not mean you want to let PCs have that object (you can avoid this by only giving NPCs abilities you don't mind PCs stealing... but that probably still means combat steal is useless).
sometimes players see the large monster's large weapon and ask if they can swing that. there's rules for that. players see the monster do something more creative than than swing a sword and curse in a funny voice. sometimes players wonder if they can do that. what's wrong with enabling pick-pocketing and consumables and creativity?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
sometimes players see the large monster's large weapon and ask if they can swing that. there's rules for that. players see the monster do something more creative than than swing a sword and curse in a funny voice. sometimes players wonder if they can do that. what's wrong with enabling pick-pocketing and consumables and creativity?
It's a lot of work to do in a way that's not entirely dysfunctional, because in D&D has a lot of genre conventions that fall apart badly if examined too closely.
The other problem is that stealing stuff in combat is only relevant if it would actually make a difference to have it in combat, rather than three rounds later when looting the bodies, and I think most DMs will be leery of permitting stuff like "I steal the mage's spell component pouch".
well, then common MM entries should include consumable usage. maybe something like a "Recharge 6" power for whatever group when the group includes five or more baddies. a bandit might drink a stolen vial of polymorph: bear, gain multiple resistances from a shield trinket, or toss homemade blinding powder into a crowd. a kobold might drink a health pot, throw jars of oil, or gain temporary AC from a charmed scale. a goblin might down theirs as a bonus action, but be equally likely to gain brute strength or become an immobile balloon full of poison. whatever. the point is that if monsters used more consumables, then a.) consumable-use would become normalized for players as well, b.) pick-pocketing might be incentivized (especially if defeated foes narratively come with empty, broken, or spoiled consumables), and c.) the recharge power's examples provide a sort of loot list for dms who need one.
Monster consumables sounds like fertile ground for a third party publisher seeking to make a name for themselves.
Given they’ve decided real spell slots are too complex for monster/NPC stat blocks, I doubt they’ll incorporate consumables into them.
You also run into the problem that NPC abilities are balanced for NPCs, so the fact that an NPC is theoretically using a consumable object does not mean you want to let PCs have that object (you can avoid this by only giving NPCs abilities you don't mind PCs stealing... but that probably still means combat steal is useless).
It's the whole "can I use the Drow Shadowblade's hand crossbow and scrape the poison off the bolts" question all over again.
sometimes players see the large monster's large weapon and ask if they can swing that. there's rules for that. players see the monster do something more creative than than swing a sword and curse in a funny voice. sometimes players wonder if they can do that. what's wrong with enabling pick-pocketing and consumables and creativity?
It's a lot of work to do in a way that's not entirely dysfunctional, because in D&D has a lot of genre conventions that fall apart badly if examined too closely.
"a lot of work" is less convincing of an argument than "too complex for the basic three books." sure! it's plenty okay to have broccoli and carrot goblins more readily accessible and common so that goblins with sprinkles are that much more interesting at other times. and i'd be disappointed if things were adjusted without a lot of work. bring on the splat book and third-party sprinkles. similarly, "not entirely dysfunctional" just doesn't seem like a significant pitfall when we're discussing uncommon limited-use items. like playing mario kart and someone smuggles an invincibility star into 2nd place: okay, someone gets to shine this time. once and done.
i'm not a dyed in the wool consumablesist, but i'm coming around. i'm definitely not a long-time rogue/kender enthusiast (in my head pick-pocketing has always been a fool's tool for making enemies of friendly NPCs), but use in combat would be entirely refreshing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
All adventures don’t have to happen in a city. Do you not have any downtime activities that take place in or near a city or town? Are you forever in the wilderness from levels 1 to 20 with no civilization? Or ever have to restock or recuperate after an earlier adventure? My group doesn’t play published adventures so if this is common in those I’ve had no experience with it
I don’t recall of it was you or another that pointed out in the summoning spell thread, when costly components was at issue, that you could plan ahead and have said components on hand in preparation of gaining the level to get the spell in question. Couldn’t a rogue do the same with standard adventuring gear?
I never said anything about "levels 1 to 20." But you could easily not have anything worth using Fast Hands with when you get your Thief subclass. That's not going to be a feel-good moment for the rogue player when everyone else has their new toys automatically.
wizard gets some free spells each level. seems like one fix would be to (officially in writing) provide a thief/rogue with a similar number of consumables each level. call it a result of downtime pickpocket practice or previously acquired trinkets turning out to have a use after all or bring your own plausibility. give a pick-or-roll list with a tame spread of potions and wands. viola.
I mean, they tried giving Kender a hammerspace ability like this and people kiboshed that, so I don't see them doing the same with an even less overtly magical subclass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In general a class/subclass feature should be self-contained, rather than relying on inventory outside of starting gear to prop it up. Magic items like wands are thoroughly subject to DM discretion, so that's already flaky. Plus honestly even as a bonus action most of the damaging items aren't worth it imo. They all involve ranged attacks, so any melee rogue will need to step away from enemies (risking an AoO since they can't Disengage in the same turn) and make an improvised weapon attack (meaning no PB without investing a feat as well) for slightly more damage than you can get from a basic TWF attack. And both Acid and Alchemist's Fire are relatively pricey, so that's asking players to make a notable investment in something with a low rate of return. Overall this feature doesn't impress.
Thief is definitely not of broad appeal, however, recently I DMed a one-shot with a thief rogue and the player was really impressed with the subclass because I gave them a bunch of potions and scrolls. Acid and Alhemist's Fire are a waste of time, but a scroll of Dispel Magic, or a Potion of Speed are definitely powerful uses of a bonus action.
The operative part of that is "[you] gave"; it's extremely dependent on the DM queueing up magic items to enable it, and so the performance is going to swing wildly between tables.
If you look at the magic item tables they are chocked full of consumables. It's one of those odd things where people just don't play the way the designers expected the game to be played. Just like how some classes are OP when the party only has 1 encounter per day, or some classes are weak if you only ever have boss fights against a solo enemy.
I'm not saying it's impossible or even particularly unrealistic, just that it's going to be very inconsistent, and that's not something you want from a class feature, particularly the opening feature of a subclass.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the class/subclass features should be self contained, especially the 3rd level feature. And I was leaving out magic items because those are way more DM dependent than standard gear.
The thief subclass could use work. But I was specifically responding to the ability to get standard gear in relation to a response in the summon thread where the same issue (getting costly M components while in a dungeon) where it was posited that the spellcaster could plan ahead and get it prior to obtaining the level to get that spell is an option. edit: PsyrenXY’s response #40 specifically in that thread. Was curious why it’s ok for a caster to prepare components ahead of time but thieves can’t with gear.
edit: and I’m all for the Thief getting something else or better at 3rd
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
wizard gets some free spells each level. seems like one fix would be to (officially in writing) provide a thief/rogue with a similar number of consumables each level. call it a result of downtime pickpocket practice or previously acquired trinkets turning out to have a use after all or bring your own plausibility. give a pick-or-roll list with a tame spread of potions and wands. viola.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I kinda wish they'd add a "steal stuff from enemies in combat" features to Thief Rogue, as if you're in a campaign without much infiltration Thief feels not great.
I agree with that. Something would help. A barbarian in a courtly/political intrigue game feels not great but they got some utility in the UA so not completely useless.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
There is a steal stuff from enemies in combat feature; that's what using fast hands for sleight of hand is. It's just that monsters don't generally have a listed inventory so it doesn't do anything.
Since you bring it up, I find the wording of that ability interesting - it suggests that Sleight of Hand will be used to disarm traps in 2024 rather than Thief Tool proficiency, similar to Baldurs Gate 3 (and of course, being proficient in both = advantage per the Rules Glossary.)
The other problem is that stealing stuff in combat is only relevant if it would actually make a difference to have it in combat, rather than three rounds later when looting the bodies, and I think most DMs will be leery of permitting stuff like "I steal the mage's spell component pouch".
well, then common MM entries should include consumable usage. maybe something like a "Recharge 6" power for whatever group when the group includes five or more baddies. a bandit might drink a stolen vial of polymorph: bear, gain multiple resistances from a shield trinket, or toss homemade blinding powder into a crowd. a kobold might drink a health pot, throw jars of oil, or gain temporary AC from a charmed scale. a goblin might down theirs as a bonus action, but be equally likely to gain brute strength or become an immobile balloon full of poison. whatever. the point is that if monsters used more consumables, then a.) consumable-use would become normalized for players as well, b.) pick-pocketing might be incentivized (especially if defeated foes narratively come with empty, broken, or spoiled consumables), and c.) the recharge power's examples provide a sort of loot list for dms who need one.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Given they’ve decided real spell slots are too complex for monster/NPC stat blocks, I doubt they’ll incorporate consumables into them.
You also run into the problem that NPC abilities are balanced for NPCs, so the fact that an NPC is theoretically using a consumable object does not mean you want to let PCs have that object (you can avoid this by only giving NPCs abilities you don't mind PCs stealing... but that probably still means combat steal is useless).
sometimes players see the large monster's large weapon and ask if they can swing that. there's rules for that. players see the monster do something more creative than than swing a sword and curse in a funny voice. sometimes players wonder if they can do that. what's wrong with enabling pick-pocketing and consumables and creativity?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
It's a lot of work to do in a way that's not entirely dysfunctional, because in D&D has a lot of genre conventions that fall apart badly if examined too closely.
Monster consumables sounds like fertile ground for a third party publisher seeking to make a name for themselves.
It's the whole "can I use the Drow Shadowblade's hand crossbow and scrape the poison off the bolts" question all over again.
"a lot of work" is less convincing of an argument than "too complex for the basic three books." sure! it's plenty okay to have broccoli and carrot goblins more readily accessible and common so that goblins with sprinkles are that much more interesting at other times. and i'd be disappointed if things were adjusted without a lot of work. bring on the splat book and third-party sprinkles. similarly, "not entirely dysfunctional" just doesn't seem like a significant pitfall when we're discussing uncommon limited-use items. like playing mario kart and someone smuggles an invincibility star into 2nd place: okay, someone gets to shine this time. once and done.
i'm not a dyed in the wool consumablesist, but i'm coming around. i'm definitely not a long-time rogue/kender enthusiast (in my head pick-pocketing has always been a fool's tool for making enemies of friendly NPCs), but use in combat would be entirely refreshing.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I mean, they tried giving Kender a hammerspace ability like this and people kiboshed that, so I don't see them doing the same with an even less overtly magical subclass.