@thedarkwanderer Hmmm, "all about fun" is pretty broad brush for me, in terms of "We play as something we do in our free time" rather than "we play since that is how we earn our paycheck" or "we play because we don't have a choice.

I could probably figure it out with a more robust language. Anydice is neat but it leaves much to be desired.

@LegendaryDude welp, thanks anyway. I think I'll need to do some more digging to model that

sigh...Another 5e "can you..." question

Another "the DM decides what to do" answer

@Adam is that in response to the sleight of hand question?

Yup.

i dislike that idea - mostly for the reaosn i put in the question comment.

it's a really dangerous road to go down.

I agree, to a certain extent. Though I'm not too concerned about the consequences of implementing it. The question looked to be "Is this even possible?" so I put in my two cents about possibility in 5e

Thief Rogues can do Sleight of Hand as a bonus action in combat IIRC, so there's at least some support for assuming you can use it to steal things mid-combat.

@NautArch Disliking it is no reason to not allow it. Why shouldn't you be able to cut the component pouch off of a caster?

It's not a dangerous road to go down unless you don't trust the people you play with

@LegendaryDude if I'm DMing a group and they keep doing that to my casters, you can bet I'm going to do it to them. And I think that falls squarely in the "not fun" category.

It's a perfectly valid (and intelligent!) way to disable a caster

Yes, and that comes down to trust. Do you trust your players won't abuse it?

No. No I do not :) If there's an easy way to disable a powerful opponent, then they're going to take it.

All of your boss monsters now innately Eschew Materials?

It's not fun to come up against problems and figure out ways to solve them? I can see all sorts of not-bad ways for it to work out.

@CTWind They can do sleight of hand as a bonus action yes, but it's still up to the DM to decide if sleight of hand applies to stealing things openly from a dude in combat. They may decide, at least in certain circumstances, that it doesn't, which is why I didn't put it in my answer

The entirety of the enjoyment I derive from D&D, aside from spending time with the boys, comes from the problem solving aspect of it

I roll to steal the first law of thermodynamics from the monster.

Then I destroy its energy.

@LegendaryDude different play stayles

*styles

basically youre pro the D&D 3.5 and earlier sorta realist/simulationist approach

which is fine

but I think anutarch is saying that if you open that door then that ultimately becomes what the game is about

there was an earlier 5e question about allowing pcs to throw sand in monsters eyes to give them disadvantage

Pocket sand!

and its like yes but then the gm can do it to you and suddenly everyone in setting starts wearing sand goggles

It's a complete fallacy. The slippery slope exists only in your head.

Ive seen it happen at a table

not the sand example

@Adam Sure, I'm just saying that there's a strong implication that that's what it is for, since there's little use in giving out of combat actions an action cost rather than a time cost.

@JoshuaAslanSmith yes - and it's also the use of a non-standard tool that becomes incredibly powerful. Caters are typically low dex/str and can't defend well against it. That's not what they're good at. If you make it easy to not just 'hit' them (which low dex/str/hp does), but also to completely disable them by removing their ability to cast a spell, that's going to be not-fun when done to the players.

but I have seen the cute combat trick houseruled into permament status and an evolving hyper meta grow out of it

which if there is consensus at your table for it then yeah as all things its fine

right, as long as the casters at the table are okay with it happening ot them, then I'm on board.

but the caution is because a GM might not see that as a potentiality or players might not and feeling can get hurt over assumptions and things

@NautArch You know what else is not fun? Being targeted by every enemy combatant as a spellcaster. Does that ever happen? No. Why? Because it's a jerk move.

I posit that constantly stealing magic component pouches from the enemy is also a jerk move and will not be as much as a problem as you think it will be, for the same reason that your spellcasters aren't targeted by every enemy combatant in every combat.

@LegendaryDude heh, for dumb monsters, yes. But for intelligent enemies? They're going to want to take out the caster asap.

in a system like Fate id be 100 percent on board with it because theyd need to generate a tag or something to use it and expend resources but houseruling it into 5e is quite a different thing

Even though, tactically, it makes the most sense to target the enemy spellcaster with focused fire.

@LegendaryDude (Unless you have Armor of Agathys up and they're multiattack meleers. Then it's time to cackle madly.)

and my players tend to do that (target the spellcaster asap)

@NautArch yeah that seems way more a question about level of challenge agreed upon by the table and whether or not the table wants an intelligent enemy vs. an experience

@JoshuaAslanSmith although i tend to decide that based on the creatures im controlling.

5e feels super heavy wizard glass cannon focused

@NautArch I totally agree, are they sentient? are they organized? etc. experience with magic

@LegendaryDude consequently, something else that isn't fun is building a character with a super high AC and loads of defensive power to help your friends...only for monsters to ignore you completely.

@NautArch "IF we allow A to happen, they will do Z, so ban A" is the definition of the slippery slope fallacy. And it's incorrect; you can't prove Z will ever become commonplace.

an enemy spellcaster should try to kill any pc spellcasters right away, he knows about how powerful a spellcaster is

@Adam Again, jerk move. If your player is built like a tank, you specifically should target him so he feels like it was worth it.

Maybe not always

And maybe don't always let it be the game changer they were hoping

I feel like 4e handled specialized builds much better

@JoshuaAslanSmith Right, so how is that any different than taking away the component pouch?

Maaaaaaybe, if the system doesn't give the tank means to get the enemies to attack them and not the casters, the system is to fault? :P

@LegendaryDude were just saying hey youre making a big houserule, tread lightly

not

@LegendaryDude that isn't what i'm really saying, though. I'm purely saying that if players want to do X, then they should expect X to be done to them. If they're aren't cool with that, then it's a no-go.

Well, part of being a tank is also being disruptive. Positioning yourself well for opportunity attacks and preventing people from reaching the squishies in addition to being able to take a hit. I kind of view the role of tanks as "Be hard to kill but even harder to ignore".

--THIS SHOULD NEVER BE DONE AVERT THINE EYES--

@JoshuaAslanSmith I don't see how stealing an item from someone is a houserule

@NautArch Then you followed up with, "This is definitely not fun"

I did kind of get onto the wider discussion of combat houserules/interpretations in the general discussion rather than the specific example that started said discussion

@LegendaryDude right, i made an assumption based on my own thought. If my wizard got their component pouch stolen and I was left useless, that'd be not-fun for me. so I'd rather not add a combat option to do so. We don't always fight casters. But my caster is always fighting.

@NautArch Yeah, but is that going to be the outcome?

the odds are much more likely that it'll happen to me then my team will have a chance to use it.

You know your pouch can be stolen so you're going to actively avoid it at all costs. Just like you already do with melee attacks.

It's an incredibly strong viable option - if it's on the table, it should be used.

@NautArch You aren't useless though. The only thing you need a pouch for is material components. If every spell you cast has a material component, then you should be aware of this weakness

That is part of the tactical situation you are already aware of. Getting hit and being sent unconscious, in this scenario, is exactly the same as having your focus stolen.

@Adam true - not everything is a material spell. But what if you rule that if you can steal, why can't you grapple and gag?

@NautArch Because that will take two actions and spellcasters can teleport?

Also, all of my wizards attacks are cantrips, so I don't need a focus or material components. Chances are I'm already concentrating on the hold person that is preventing the would-be thief from stealing my component pouch.

THe more non-standard actions you allow, in my opinion, the more opportunity there is for abuse. But again, if those at the table are okay if it happens to them, too, then it's not a problem.

TO me, I'd rather not have the opportunity to use it gainst the caster when I see it so that it isn't used against me on a much more regular basis.

@NautArch It's only "abuse" if you think it's a problem with the game. These things aren't necessarily bad.

the point I'm trying to illustrate is that your argument of "If we allow A then Z will happen" takes a lot more things falling into place between A and Z for it to actually come true.

and my argument is purely, if those at the table don't want it to happen to them, then it shouldn't be on the table as something to add to your action choices.

that's not the only option!

Another option is to to play intelligently and prevent it from happening

There are plenty of not-fun things that can happen to you that are well within the rules

Like dying

^ I was just about to say

Or inventory management

hehe

That's super not-fun

Also, the strength of "Just bleeping kill him" shouldn't be undervalued; not every special action will be an improvement over trying to squash a target dead. Enemies have a life expectancy of about 3 rounds in 5e, giving him an extra one via attempting to disable him in a way that may or may not be effective could backfire in the long run.

agreed - but that's why it's a discussion for the table. My reaction to gagging/component stealing is I wouldn't want that as an option against me, so I don't see a need to add it.

@NautArch But because you don't want it to happen, I kind of want to make it a thing. Because then it gets you extra scared when monsters get close. And that is exquisite.

@CTWind OMG, this. I can't tell you how many times I've just had to yell at our (former) cleric, "Just ****ing attack him!"

@NautArch What about silence? It has the same effect and is perfectly allowable.

In fact, silence is more powerful because it can (partially) disable every spellcaster in your party at once.

Yes, I'm cool with that. That's general hot caster on caster action.

That's... completely arbitrary in comparison to a thief using his hot thief skills on a caster to obtain a similar, probably weaker, effect.

I understand what you're saying, i just disagree. Yes, it's probably better for a creature to try and kill another creature, and using up their action on an attempt to steal is awfully risky considering the reward, but it takes a lot of things to make it happen. The alternate DIsarming rule is the big one. That's a non-standard action. In regular rules, I think only the battlemaster gets a disarm feature. Opening that up to everyone does reduce that Battlemaster maneuver choice.

@NautArch Okay. So would you allow a battlemaster to disarm an arcane focus staff out of a wizard's hand?

which isn't a huge deal, but it's turning on a variant rule that does have wider reaching effects (in my mind - and I undersatnd that it may not actually be so and I could be vastly overreacting)

@NautArch Using sleight of hand is a variant rule?

@LegendaryDude If the arcane focus is being held, yes. That's the specific maneuver they have trained in.

@NautArch And thieves have trained specifically to be able to steal pouches from people's belts.

@LegendaryDude I'm not sure I"d allow sleight of hand in combat, to be honest. Unless you are fighting multiple people, you're pretty damned aware of what you're fighting is doing. I dunno - i could be very wrong on that.

As a bonus action, no less.

@NautArch What if the thief was invisible and had succeeded on a stealth check?

or was in darkness and has succeeded on a stealth check

Well, the specific disarm rule in the DMG is optional, yes, but even the PHB specifies that the general framework of contests is meant to be used for unorthodox opposed actions.

@CTWind The disarm variant rule is optional, pretty sure battlemaster has it as a maneuver.

Disarm is optional in 5E?

@MadMAxJr see my previous message

@Adam If the thief is successfully hidden, I think that'd be fine as an option.

@LegendaryDude Yes. I'm more trying to say even if you don't use the DMG's specific disarm rule, the PHB guidelines for contests should still be the response for a player asking to do it, not a flat 'no'.

I personally am not convinced that sleight of hand should be used as a replacement for the disarm in combat. that just feels like "oh, thieves aren't good at strength...can I just use my dex instead?" but if you are hidden, or the target is blinded, or the like, I would be fine with that.

@CTWind Oh yeah, absolutely agree.

@Adam No one said use sleight of hand to disarm people! panics

Yeah, we're talking about using sleight of hand to dis-component pouch people.

Yeah, I wouldn't allow sleight for actively held personal objects.

@CTWind Well, are you really actively holding your own arm?

@LegendaryDude That's not what I mean exactly. I'm trying to use it as an analogy of sorts. Sleight of Hand seems to be to be about stealing things. If I can see you trying to steal from me, I fight back, and it becomes a strength contest. Or I try to worm my way away from you, and that's me using dexterity. Disarming is basically stealing a weapon

back had to step out for a bit

@LegendaryDude CONDITION RED

I didn't mean to imply that I thought we would start using dexterity for disarming, that's not at all what I meant

although I'd say that a comnpontent pouch/focus IS actively used by a caster - hence eligible for disarm.

This conversation has given me an idea. The next time a thief tries to reach into an NPC's pouch on the street he's going to pull out a handful of guano, a piece of sheep's wool, and some salt peter.

What I mean is that running up to a dude and trying to pull something off of him isn't sneaky, so I'm not convinced sleight of hand applies. It feels like the argument is that it should apply just because you are reaching for a pouch or necklace instead of a weapon

combatAction.Steal(Wizard.offHand); ERROR: canSteal is NULL, default behavior chosen, Entire Wizard stolen instead.

I mean, I'd use sleight of hand for non-subtle thefts too. Running by someone and snatching their purse before they can think to resist, feinting an attack and grabbing someone while they're distracted, etc.

It's about drawing someone's attention away while you commit the crime, not necessarily having it permanently unnoticed.

@CTWind And I might not. there is a lot of context in-game that would shape my decision and feeling, so it's impossible for me to say what I would do one way or another without hearing the player describe it themselves

@CTWind I'm pretty sure that's the standard way of thieving; they're called cut-purses for a reason.

@Adam And this is exactly why I've been saying that you can't just ban it outright out of fear that it will lead to some hypothetical abuse that you can't even prove will happen

something something weapon bond my improvised weapon pls /s

Or shield, rather.

@LegendaryDude athough in the case of something that MIGHT be abusive, I'd also say "that's super cool - if we allow this, are you okay with it possibly beingdone and against you and yours?"

although, I'm pretty sure what you'rs aying is, just because someone does something cool once, doesn't mean they'll do it again. so why not let htem and if it becomes a problem, THEN deal with it. and I'm totally in agreement there. I just see the worst case scenario in things and tend to act on it :)

this sort of reminds me of my PHantasmal Force question about using it restrain/knock someone prone.

Depends on the player, but I tend to go with that. If I make a ruling on an unclear situation and they proceed to use that as often as possible to solve everything and anything that ruling covers, frequently, I have to take it up with them away from table.

I have at least one player who will pick apart my wording to the letter and try to abuse it if I have to make a call on my own, so I usually try to back my decisions with RAW / well sourced Q/A, and/or author intent.

@LegendaryDude should be booby trapped with some kind of vorpal blade to cut off the hand if an access word isnt mentioned

Nobody likes a bag of holding with DRM on it.

"Why can't I open this and why is there magical writing on the wall now?" Wizard leans in, read magic, "Something called a Captcha.... Which of these runes looks like a pony?"

[X] User is not a Golem

"A verification message has been delivered using Sending to your person. Please perform the ritual detailed inside to change your truename."

Crap. Two factor sorcery.

IoT - the Interconnectedness of Thaumaturgically-crafted objects.

Just don't tap the 'forgot password' rune. The demi elemental plane of technical support is strange.

You think Goblins in the realm are annoying? Try a Goblin call-center.

The estimated wait time to talk to a DM is: 16 rounds.

@MadMAxJr gonna need Tongues for this.

Please stay on the line, your call is important, and an interruption may cause psychic backlash and a loss of your place in the queue.

Please be aware that your call may be Scryed to ensure customer satisfaction.

@MadMAxJr "that's only about a minute and a half, I can deal with that..."

@Yuuki "As a side note, we recommend wearing pants for the duration of the call."

If you are calling from a modern setting game, please press 3. If you are calling from a fantasy world, please stay on the line.

If you are Azathoth, the unknowning, the uncaring, Nuclear Chaos, Daemon Sultan, and finally The Blind Idiot God, please press random buttons with your uncaring flailing tentacles that aren't playing accursed flutes.

@CTWind True story: someone at my workplace had a Skype video call from home once, and looked all dressed up in a suit and tie, until they stood up to do something and it turned out they were still in their pyjama shorts. Lessons were learned about proper application of trousers during video calls and/or when to not stand up during them. No harm was done but i imagine they had trouble living it down for a while.

@MadMAxJr What if it's me with a partial JSON file? XD (And none of the people I want to show it to are online)

You'll need to hang up and use stack exchange (now with goblins)

Now there's an april fools stack.. 'Wizards Exchange'

"I'm getting a 500 error when I try to cast Sending, plssendteharcana"

"Why am I only getting fish?" Q: I'm using a seven point transmutation circle and adding water distillate, carbon, and four blue dragon scales. The manual states this should result in creation of a small being from the plane of water. Why am I only getting fish?

> "I need transport one item with a volume of 3 cubic feet roughly 300 meters without traveling through any alternate planes. Please help."

Tagged as spellwork, Closed as little research effort

"I am unable to perform crafting in my mine. HELP?" Closed as Not a Real Spell.

@MadMAxJr Spellcraft, Minecraft, it looks all the same to me.

"My friend gave me a ritual scroll for Detect Thoughts that says the material cost is one copper piece. Is he just playing a joke on me?"

"The Wizards.SE mods are going insane with power, they're closing my questions without my permission. Can the SE team Banish them?"

(Alternate joke: "The material cost is one copper piece. What am I supposed to actually buy with it?")

Ritual to close question (2 casters remaining)

@CTWind Thinking about it. Why does a penny for your thoughts always get me your two cents?

Clearly it shows an interest in your thoughts.

@Adam 2 hours later...

yeah heh

I think it sparked an 8 hour conversation at the time

to be fair - we were talking quite a bit today :D

@JoshuaAslanSmith It sticks in my mind, because it's the first time I answered a question twice. (Looking back, I'm not crazy about either. But meh....)

heh

@JoshuaAslanSmith Glad to see you nominated again!