Characters using other class abilities

[Grandpa]

No One can be a Jedi Just observing Obi-Wan waving his hand (unless you are Rey, but that s bad Fanfiction bwhahaha).

And no one can pick a lock just by observing a locksmith.

[Fizz]

I think anyway that the argument "so a thief can make spells Just watching a wizard" Is absolutely nonsense and Just for argumenting.

No One can be a Jedi Just observing Obi-Wan waving his hand (unless you are Rey, but that s bad Fanfiction bwhahaha).

I agree. I would not allow these either. I used that analogy only to illustrate two points. 1: the flaw in the premise that "anyone can attempt anything". 2: that permitting some classes to use thiefly abilities is inherently unfair.

-FIzz

[Fizz]

No One can be a Jedi Just observing Obi-Wan waving his hand (unless you are Rey, but that s bad Fanfiction bwhahaha).

And no can pick a lock just by observing a locksmith.

Ha! Exactly. Applies to all abilities.

-Fizz

[mostrojoe]

1: the flaw in the premise that "anyone can attempt anything". 2: that permitting some classes to use thiefly abilities is inherently unfair.

-FIzz

If you are talking about pick pockets, disarm traps and pick locks, I agree.

If you are talking about climbing and listening I disagree.

As I said I am somewhat in the middle.

[JShan101]

Can always double the CL for folks attempting non-class abilities. Fighter wants to climb that sheer wall? It's a CL 3 for the thief, but CL 6 for the fighter. Wizard wants to track? CL 2 for the Ranger, CL 4 for ol'robes-and-pointy-hat guy. And no adding level.

You still let everybody try. Why not?

[Fizz]

If you are talking about climbing and listening I disagree.

Remember that the Climb ability specifially says that it allows the character to climb things that others would find impossible. That means others can't do it.

Listen is easier to adjudicate, because the character doesn't know in advance what they will hear. So even with identical check results, the thief will recognize what was heard ("you hear a goblin unsheathing his sword") whereas the non-thief will at best get something vague ("you hear some faint shuffling").

It's those impossible things that i would not allow to the non-thief. It's not just that thieves are better at it. They can do things others can't.

You still let everybody try. Why not?

For the same reason that you don't let a thief try to cast a wizard spell, or turn undead, or have an extra attack. Those are impossible tasks to other classes. And Climb (etc) is an ability that is likewise impossible to others.

At low levels where the effect of primes is dominant over level the reasoning becomes very noticable. If a fighter with Dex prime can attempt any thief skill then there is not much point to the thief at lower levels. If anyone can attempt it, then why even mention it as a class ability? Abilities are meant to be things that not anyone can do. That's why the default rule in the PH is to not allow it. Let each class shine in their own domain.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

You still let everybody try. Why not?

For the same reason that you don't let a thief try to cast a wizard spell, or turn undead, or have an extra attack. Those are impossible tasks to other classes. And Climb (etc) is an ability that is likewise impossible to others.

At low levels where the effect of primes is dominant over level the reasoning becomes very noticable. If a fighter with Dex prime can attempt any thief skill then there is not much point to the thief at lower levels. If anyone can attempt it, then why even mention it as a class ability? Abilities are meant to be things that not anyone can do. That's why the default rule in the PH is to not allow it. Let each class shine in their own domain.

-Fizz

It's really disingenuous to compare supernatural abilities like spellcasting or turning undead to physical abilities like climbing a wall. The fact that the DEX fighter can't add his level to a Climb attempt means it probably won't work. But if a player wants to try it, I wouldn't stop it. Roll the dice.. read em and weep.

If you take your approach to the conclusion, fighting is a fighter's class ability. That's probably why their BtH equals their level. But by your logic, no one should be able to fight, especially melee, but a fighter. And yet all classes can do so, with differing chances of success.

I know that's a stretch, but I think it makes the point.

[Fizz]

It's really disingenuous to compare supernatural abilities like spellcasting or turning undead to physical abilities like climbing a wall. The fact that the DEX fighter can't add his level to a Climb attempt means it probably won't work. But if a player wants to try it, I wouldn't stop it. Roll the dice.. read em and weep.

It's not disingenuous at all. If anyone can do it, why is it an ability? Again, read what Climb says: lets the character climb things others would find impossible. Impossible is in the very description of the ability. That's why i have said it should have been named "Climb Sheer Walls" rather than just Climb. (These distinctions were much more clear in pre-3e editions.)

Also, as previously mentioned, thief abiities are (in 3e terms) extraordinary. They are not magical per se, but they can go beyond the normal laws of physics.

If you permit the attempt, then at low levels a Dex-prime fighter will have nearly the same chance of success as a thief would. There would be no point in playing a thief in a low-level campaign, because any class with Dex prime would be nearly as good at thief abilities anyways.

If you take your approach to the conclusion, fighting is a fighter's class ability. That's probably why their BtH equals their level. But by your logic, no one should be able to fight, especially melee, but a fighter. And yet all classes can do so, with differing chances of success.

You're again confusing normal tasks with special abilities. First, "fighting" is not a fighter's class ability. No where is the class description is an ability called "fighting". We're talking about class abilities, and "fighting" isn't one.

But not just anyone can specialize in a weapon, not anyone gains extra attack, not anyone has dominance. BtH is only a small piece of what makes the fighter great at combat. It's not that he just picks up a sword- he can do things that others can't.

A thief swinging a sword is analogous to a fighter climbing a tree. Yes, both can do it, but it's not what makes them special- those aren't special abilities. I never once said a fighter could not try to climb ordinary things such as a tree (in fact i specifically said otherwise). But only a character with Climb should be able to attempt a sheer cliff unaided, just as only a fighter gets an extra attack. The thief can do things others can't.

In fact, if you read the examples in the PH, it includes cases where tasks that don't belong to any class (such as swimming) might not allow an attempt at all. So if those are subject to being disallowed, then certainly cross-class abilities are too, and should be even more restrictive.


-Fizz

[JShan101]

For the same reason that you don't let a thief try to cast a wizard spell, or turn undead

Not really an apple-to-apple comparison when it comes practical physical skills like climbing. Most folks can climb a tree. Some folks could do a decent job of climbing a wall that has a lot of craggy handholds if they're dextrous enough. Not great, but decent. It's the "sheer wall" thing where it crosses the line. As for extra attacks, if they want to argue about "why can't I?', I'll absolutely let them try, Enjoy that -6 I'm throwing on you!

But hey, everybody runs it their own way.

[Grandpa]

For the same reason that you don't let a thief try to cast a wizard spell, or turn undead

Not really an apple-to-apple comparison when it comes practical physical skills like climbing. Most folks can climb a tree.

This isn't about climbing a tree. That is an apples to to road apples comparison.

The Class skill in question is: "Climb (Dexterity): This extraordinary ability allows a rogue
to climb up, down, or across a slope, wall, steep incline (even
a ceiling with hand holds), or unusually angled natural or man
made slope or incline that others would find impossible to climb."

[Fizz]

Not really an apple-to-apple comparison when it comes practical physical skills like climbing. Most folks can climb a tree. Some folks could do a decent job of climbing a wall that has a lot of craggy handholds if they're dextrous enough. Not great, but decent. It's the "sheer wall" thing where it crosses the line. As for extra attacks, if they want to argue about "why can't I?', I'll absolutely let them try, Enjoy that -6 I'm throwing on you!

It's something that others can't do, regardless of whether it is magical in nature or not. Extraordinary abilities can bend the laws of physics, just like magic can, even if it's not perceived as magic in the setting. If X can attempt Y abilities, but Y cannot attempt X abilities, that's inherently unfair to Y, and effectively removes the raison d'etre of Y, especially at low levels.

I agree, characters can try to climb anything if there are sufficient handholds / traction. That's not any more special /extraordinary than walking, but you don't need "walk" as a class ability. Everyone can do it, so it doesn't need to be specified as a special ability. If everyone were meant to do it, it wouldn't be listed under specific classes.


-Fizz

[paladinn]

Alas, in recent editions of "The Game", climb and such have been classified as skills that yes, anyone can do. Rogues are better at them because they have more "skill points" and can allocate more. At least C&C still has them as class abilities. So even if one does incorporate a rudimentary skill system, those skills will never come close to a Rogue. Rogues add their level; others don't.

[Fizz]

Alas, in recent editions of "The Game", climb and such have been classified as skills that yes, anyone can do. Rogues are better at them because they have more "skill points" and can allocate more.

Indeed. I've come to think that 3e skills may be the worst thing ever done to "The Game". I am fine with skill systems, but what 3e did was take unique abilities and make them ordinary. In 3e, a smart party could do nearly everything a rogue could do with equal competence, without actually having a rogue in the group. I should also note this line of thinking was not just a thief-rogue issue; it also hurt rangers hard (due to tracking and outdoorsy-related skills).

That's why i encourage everyone to refer to the C&C abilities by their original early-edition names: Not "Hide", but "Hide in Shadows". Not "Climb", but "Climb Walls". Not "Listen", but "Detect Noise". And so forth. Restore thieves to their former glory!

For the same reason i refer to them as thieves rather than rogues. I want people to think of them in that early edition context, not the 3e context. The descriptive text says they are the "ultimate thieves", but i prefer making that statement outright. Heh.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

"Rogue" actually suits the current renditions of the class better than "thief." Rogues are no longer the puny d4-HD thieves of old. With their expanded weapons allowed, and with both backstab And sneak attack, they are very capable combatants. And I typically add some houserules to make them even moreso, especially weapon finesse.

"Thieves" would typically avoid conflict. Rogues are more careful and precise about it. And they make pretty good swashbucklers, or "Rakes" from BECMI.

[Fizz]

"Rogue" actually suits the current renditions of the class better than "thief." Rogues are no longer the puny d4-HD thieves of old. With their expanded weapons allowed, and with both backstab And sneak attack, they are very capable combatants. And I typically add some houserules to make them even moreso, especially weapon finesse.

"Thieves" would typically avoid conflict. Rogues are more careful and precise about it. And they make pretty good swashbucklers, or "Rakes" from BECMI.

Only 3e rogues were decent in a straight up fight. They had an attack bonus equivalent to the cleric (bonus equal to 3/4 level), and Sneak Attack applied to any flank attack, meaning they could nearly always get the bonus damage. It actually encouraged them to get into melee.

Now compare that to C&C and earlier editions. In both C&C and 1st / 2nd ed, Backstab is a one-off strike; the thief can't just stand there getting bonus damage round after round. 1st and 2nd Ed thieves fight with an attack bonus of 1/2 their level. The C&C rogue has a BtH that increases every 3 levels. Not only that, but the 1st / 2nd Ed Backstab was not limited by weapon, whereas in C&C the weapon must be small (no longer than his arm), which limits the back attack damage. So the C&C version actually fights worse than the 1st and 2nd ed thief, and is vastly inferior to the 3e version.

So in terms of combat, i would say the C&C version is much more in line with earlier editions.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

You're giving me more ideas for houserules:)

I definitely want to import weapon finesse for the rogue. And the dodge "skill" from the BECMI rake

[Fizz]

I definitely want to import weapon finesse for the rogue. And the dodge "skill" from the BECMI rake

Weapon finesse is one of those things that makes sense, but only if universally applied. That is to say, it doesn't make sense as a feat or special ability. Do we really think that everyone uses light weapons through brute force (Strength) unless they have special training?

One of my house rules is that all light weapons use dexterity, and heavy weapons use strength, regardless of character class. So if you want a swashbuckling fighter, you don't need high strength, just high dexterity and the appropriate weapon. It immediately creates different styles of combat without requiring a bunch of extra feats / abilities, etc.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

I definitely want to import weapon finesse for the rogue. And the dodge "skill" from the BECMI rake

Weapon finesse is one of those things that makes sense, but only if universally applied. That is to say, it doesn't make sense as a feat or special ability. Do we really think that everyone uses light weapons through brute force (Strength) unless they have special training?

One of my house rules is that all light weapons use dexterity, and heavy weapons use strength, regardless of character class. So if you want a swashbuckling fighter, you don't need high strength, just high dexterity and the appropriate weapon. It immediately creates different styles of combat without requiring a bunch of extra feats / abilities, etc.

-Fizz

Do you apply the DEX bonus to damage or just to attack?

[Grandpa]

Rogues are no longer the puny d4-HD thieves of old.

Well in AD&D Thieves had a D6 for HP.

[mostrojoe]

Weapon finesse is one of those things that makes sense, but only if universally applied.

I agree here.

I should apply finesse too and I think C&C should have an advantage or an option that could mimic It.

What Is the list of weapons you think could work with finesse?
You add Dex or Str bonus to damage?

[paladinn]

Rogues are no longer the puny d4-HD thieves of old.

Well in AD&D Thieves had a D6 for HP.

As it should be. Ever play BECMI? Thieves were pretty bad.

[Captain_K]

I have an prime INT and have seen magic missile cast many times and i rolled a natural 20! Why can't I cast MM?

DM:. Because you are a fighter!

If the spell caster abilities are protected, do the same for the thief please.
I wrote up a nice bit on skills, abilities etc. Anyone want it send me a PM.

[paladinn]

I have an prime INT and have seen magic missile cast many times and i rolled a natural 20! Why can't I cast MM?

DM:. Because you are a fighter!

If the spell caster abilities are protected, do the same for the thief please.
I wrote up a nice bit on skills, abilities etc. Anyone want it send me a PM.

By all means, your game is your game. I happen to like that the Trolls have some guidelines for allowing other characters to be at least slightly good at skills that will never rise to the level of class abilities. But that's me.

[Fizz]

I have an prime INT and have seen magic missile cast many times and i rolled a natural 20! Why can't I cast MM?

DM:. Because you are a fighter!

If the spell caster abilities are protected, do the same for the thief please.

This is a nice succinct summary.

By all means, your game is your game. I happen to like that the Trolls have some guidelines for allowing other characters to be at least slightly good at skills that will never rise to the level of class abilities. But that's me.

Except you continue to mischaracterize what the Trolls have said. Checks that "intrude in the realm" of another class should generally not be allowed. And if the CK does permit, it is inferior to the class ability. The Trolls explicitely say that a fighter can never move silently, only quietly, and detectable even if the check is successful. That is not "slightly good", it is vastly inferior to the class ability. Effectively, intrusion is only allowed for mundane efforts, not the extraordinary.

As you say, do what you want in your game, but don't delude yourself that your method is endorsed by the core rules.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

And if the CK does permit, it is inferior to the class ability. The Trolls explicitely say that a fighter can never move silently, only quietly, and detectable even if the check is successful. That is not "slightly good", it is vastly inferior to the class ability.

That is almost exactly "my method" as you say. And I have said much the same thing multiple times.

[Fizz]

That is almost exactly "my method" as you say. And I have said much the same thing multiple times.

Well that is not what you have indicated in previous posts, per statements like "anyone can try anything" and being "slightly good" with others' class skills in your last message.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

I've said that any "skills" that characters may have that aren't class abilities should not rise to the level of another class' abilities.

I just don't think that skills that resemble rogue abilities, or assassin abilities, or acrobat abilities, or even some martial abilities need to be "all-or-nothing." Not magical abilities; physical abilities. If someone can swim, for example, it's definitely a skill and should be able to gain some bonus, but it won't add one's level unless the character's class has swimming as a class ability; maybe a pirate?

I think it adds some variety, customization and detail that doesn't lessen class abilities. And what happens if someone is skilled in swimming, again, and a new class is created that has swimming as a class ability. Does the previous character lose whatever swimming ability s/he might have because it's not a "class ability" for his/her class?

Ultimately a lot is up to the CK. If s/he rules that a given wall can't be climbed by anyone but a rogue, so be it. If s/he decides to let the agile fighter with the climb skill give it a shot, great. The fighter might not make it, but it ends up being CK fiat.

I don't think it's right to attack even the possibility when, by your own admission, you use a variety of house rules. But your game is yours. Someone else might feel differently.

[Fizz]

I just don't think that skills that resemble rogue abilities, or assassin abilities, or acrobat abilities, or even some martial abilities need to be "all-or-nothing." Not magical abilities; physical abilities.

You're treating class abilities as things that anyone can do. Instead try thinking of them as extraordinary abilities, not magical per se, but beyond the normal laws of physics for normal folk. For example climb for example specifically says "climb things others would find impossible". That means no one else can do it. If anyone can do it, it's not worth of being a class ability. A class ability means much more than just adding level.

If someone can swim, for example, it's definitely a skill and should be able to gain some bonus, but it won't add one's level unless the character's class has swimming as a class ability; maybe a pirate?

The PH discusses swimming, and it's essentially determined by the character's background. It's not a class-specific ability. I could see adding Swimming as a secondary skill (to gain "some bonus" as you say). I've no problem with that, but that is a different topic altogether. Conflating secondary skills with class abilities is the issue here.

I think it adds some variety, customization and detail that doesn't lessen class abilities. And what happens if someone is skilled in swimming, again, and a new class is created that has swimming as a class ability. Does the previous character lose whatever swimming ability s/he might have because it's not a "class ability" for his/her class?

If you treat class abilities as things others can't do, then that problem goes away. If you had Swim as a class ability, then it shouldn't be what you or i could learn; it should turn the character into a virtual-dolphin, heh. It should be something beyond the normal that makes you say "how the hell is that possible?".

Now if you add a secondary skill system that reflect specialized knowledge that anyone can learn, then i'm in favor of that. But my point is to not diminish class abilities, which not anyone can do.

I don't think it's right to attack even the possibility when, by your own admission, you use a variety of house rules. But your game is yours. Someone else might feel differently.

I'm not sure what you mean by "attack the possibility". You had said "Trolls have some guidelines for allowing other characters to be at least slightly good at skills that will never rise to the level of class abilities." And that's not what the rules say at all. Whether you choose to ignore it is another matter. Heh.

-Fizz

[paladinn]

"If a skill mimics a class ability, it provides the skill bonus, but the PC doesn’t get to add their level, unless they’re a member of the class with the ability" - Players' Guide to Aihrde 5e, Appendix F: "Adding 5e to C&C", page 156.

That is the guideline from TLG. It's all optional. If someone wants to use it in their game, it's their game. If you don't want to, that's your choice. But stop pooping on a concept/option that was published by the people who published the game.

[Fizz]

"If a skill mimics a class ability, it provides the skill bonus, but the PC doesn’t get to add their level, unless they’re a member of the class with the ability" - Players' Guide to Aihrde 5e, Appendix F: "Adding 5e to C&C", page 156.
That is the guideline from TLG. It's all optional. If someone wants to use it in their game, it's their game.

OK, so let's have a look exactly at what this "guideline" means and the context.

In 5e, skills are mundane. For example, 5e Sneak doesn't let anyone (rogue or otherwise) move with absolute silence (the fact that there is an opposed check allowed is proof of this). And 5e climb, pick locks, and disable traps aren't even considered their own skills anymore, and aren't unique to the rogue. They too are mundane abilities. (And if you treat the 5e version as equivalent to the C&C, then right away you're diminishing the C&C class.)

Next, do the guidelines permit the character to do things only the emulated class can do? Does it say anything that overrides the examples where it explicitely places limits on what is possible? No- it does not. Those rules remain intact.

So the class abilities of the C&C thief are superior to any skill from 5e. For example, the 5e Sneak might give the fighter a bonus to move quietly, but still never silently. C&C thief abilities can still do things that regular 5e skills can't.

Thus, this "guideline" is like a secondary skill system. It gives the character a boost to things that they could do already. They do not let the character do the extraordinary things that only the thief / assassin / ranger, etc can do.

The "guidelines" are trying to kludge together two very different systems and design philosophies. The two systems (skills and class abilities) are not equivalent, and trying to force them together is not a free pass to let anyone try anything.

If you don't want to, that's your choice. But stop pooping on a concept/option that was published by the people who published the game.

Stop mischaracterizing. I have made no judgement on PGA. And nothing in its "guideline" contradicts what i've said throughout.

And stop trying to treat a book written for a 5e audience as though it's C&C core. If they had intended for class ability intrusion, they would also have said so in the C&C version of PGA- they didn't. Core C&C is the PH and M&T only. This is not conjecture, the Trolls say so.


-Fizz