Suggestions

[danielmn]

Wolves in certain places tend to be a bit hardier...it's the wildman diet they have been living on.

[oldgrayrogue]

Would it be possible to have chain shirts of the "rogue links" style added to the merchants? I don't mean the bonuses just the style of the armor. I believe it is a base armor for chain shirt in the tool set that has various color options. I'm guessing it could be easily added. Some shades of black and gray would be on my personal wish list. As it stands right now the options for chain shirts (a very useful light armor) are not very rogueish looking. I have been trying to learn how to make some custom armor with the tool set, but if I continue much longer I will need a new monitor and new window.

[Kalandorm]

Is there any possible way we can get ride of that annoying WOOOSH visual effect on the "On Enter" areas? It makes for dramatic entrances, but seems out of place as for gameplay.

[Kalandorm]

Can we have composite bows? Or do we have them already?

And I too am interested in composite bows.

[Brother Humphrey]

Lieutenant Flinn Pomador seems to be a reasonably conciencious (spelling sucks, i know) officer of the Argent Legion. Should he not be seeing to it that patrols of the Rivermoot area resume, at least from the plantation to the graveyard bridge and back, as was customary prior to, or soon after the beginning of the whole Blue Tusk/Undead-in-the-Crypt problems? I know a certain sergeant that would object strenuously, but who's wearing the balls in this outfit, after all? Just my 2 cp worth.

[oldgrayrogue]

Is Thieve's Cant available as a language in ALFA? If so how do I get it and if not can it be added?

[Burt]

Is Thieve's Cant available as a language in ALFA? If so how do I get it and if not can it be added?

I've seen some players do a pretty good job of pulling this off through dialogue (i.e. they actually type in thieves cant).

However, if you don't have the time or inclination to learn a useless tongue then you might just want to invest skill points in a placeholder (I use Craft Trap - 2 skill points per language for non-bards) with the permission of a DM. Then either have the language added to your DMFI options, or if it doesn't exist use **Thieves Cant** tags when appropriate. Given that Cant is intelligible to a speaker of the native tongue I guess there's a chance someone could get the jist of what you're saying with the appropriate roll.

[oldgrayrogue]

I have seen Cant as a DMFI language on other servers implemented as a type of sign language. So when you type your dialogue in the DMFI language box what is broadcast for the world to see is something like *scratches head" or "folds arms." Only those who have cant as a language, or have a successful roll against the language DC "understand" what you are saying by being able to read the translation in the dialogue box just like with any other DMFI language. I think this type of system would be nice to add to ALFA (to the extent its not already availble as a DMFI language). Nice RP tool for rogues and for those playing a member of the local constabulary trying to catch them =).

[Brokenbone]

First off, let me say I really like Thieves' Cant. It can be hilarious, add some interesting flavor, all that good stuff.

However, it is not 100% clear that it quite survived as a true "language" in either D&D 3.0 or 3.5. (It was definitely around, just like Druid Cant, in older editions). That is, you won't find it listed in the PHB, DMG, or for Forgotten Realms, the FRCS. Sometimes you will find NPC descriptions here and there (such as the Erevis Cale stats on Candlekeep) that list Thieves Cant as though it were a full blown language, but I'm having a tough time tracing that back to any rule. Poor "thieves" became "rogues" across editions, maybe their image needed to be cleaned up, who knows? I have seen DMFI Language Widget stuff in NWN1 at least which made an attempt at Thieves Cant, didn't much like it though.

Anyhow, to my point, Thieves Cant may not be a language as its function was subsumed in 3.0 by the Innuendo skill, or in 3.5 by the Bluff & Sense Motive combination. Again, useful skills for passing secret messages, but with a chance that those listening in twig to what's being discussed... there's DCs and everything described where you'd think, in the SRD. I assume DMs could also add circumstance bonus for observers who kept overhearing the same darned secret message after certain events, like a +2 when you hear two rogues laughing about "visiting the neighbours" and there's just been a break & enter that's the talk of the village, or you hear about someone being "crashed" or "clicked", and you know there was a murder last night.

I'd figure people whose PCs have some "reasonable connection" to the underworld (possessing Rogue class, or the DM has otherwise agreed even without the Rogue class, there's connection, like a priest of a thieving god, a warrior class guy who's done significant work with criminals, maybe even your rare law enforcement type), can use various code phrases with agreed meanings without spending a language slot, but also without the defense of "that observer didn't spend a slot, therefore he can't realize what having tea with the pigs means." However, if there is a keenly interested observer around, opposed bluff/sense motive checks can go on for the gist of the message to get through, even if it has to be made very, very vague. Again, certain code words are not going to be general knowledge, you could perhaps figure out that Papa Porker is the local captain of the constabulary, or that Deadly Nevergreen wasn't the name of a person, but of the gallows... but if a thief PC said "I switched the fancy booze to Uncle Shavepenny", an observer might note that "a sale (switch) of jewellery (fancy booze) was made to a fence (uncle) who's identified as Shavepenny." Doubt an the observer, even with a "20" on Sense Motive would know who Shavepenny is, it might be a pet name unique amongst a small group of PCs and NPCs for a merchant born with some less unfortunate moniker.

Anyhow, net, I don't think Thieves' Cant is necessarily an independent language, penetrable only as amongst the initiated... true languages are only useful to those who spend Speak Languages ranks (or substitute skills like Burt mentions), innuendo style ones with common codes and substitutions, a Bluff/SM routine should in cases be able to break. Also, I would think in all cases there'd be a preference to see slang roleplayed, as opposed to *flagging*, like "<Thieves Cant> LET US ROB SOME RICH PEOPLE" as opposed to "Let's bite on a little provender, I'm thinking the oaken stuff."

A sort of crazy dense example is below, I think the rare peppering in of key words is all you can expect from people typing in real time without having a long list of terminology in front of them, still, much better flavor to it than "tagging":

Thief #1: <thieves cant> "Hello, Blackhand and I were planing on burglarizing the Captain of the Guard's house tonight at 1:00 am. We need a third thief to act as lookout. Are you intrested?"
Thief #2: <thieves cant> "What kind of loot are you going to steal? Who's your fence?
Thief #1: <thieves cant> "We won't need a fence. We are going for money only."
Thief #2: <thieves cant> "That's going to be heavy work. Sounds too risky. I'm not interested."

vs.

Thief #1: "Knock-knock, Blackhand an I were flag wavin' bout visiting Papa Porker's crib at seven clean fingers. We're lookin' fer a third gentleman for a pair o' eyes. Interested?"
Thief #2: "What style of stuffing ya wanna to borrow ? Who's your uncle?"
Thief #1: "Uncle's out of town. We're gonna pick bits.
Thief #2: "That's fat lady work. Sounds too boring. I'm not interested."

...

Note I may be completely wrong, Thieves Cant may have full language status somewhere in 3.0/3.5, but again, I think Innuendo, and then Bluff/Sense Motive took it over under the "sending a secret message" functions of those skills.

PS - Like I said before, I like thieves (of any character class!) and thieves' cant well enough, just don't think they're detection-proof methods of communication. I would hate for an interesting exchange to be boiled down via widgets and tools into *tilts head, rubs ears* like a catcher signaling a pitcher, and have all observers lose out on something interesting taking place.

[hollyfant]

Delivering a Secret Message: You can use Bluff to get a message across to another character without others understanding it. Two rogues, for example, might seem to be talking about bakery goods when they’re really planning how to break into the evil wizard’s laboratory. The DC is 15 for simple messages, or 20 for complex messages, especially those that rely on getting across new information. Failure by 4 or less means you can’t get the message across. Failure by 5 or more means that some false information has been implied or inferred. Anyone listening to the exchange can make a Sense Motive check opposed by the Bluff check you made to transmit in order to intercept your message.

[oldgrayrogue]

BB -- given your post you will love this website:

http://mimir.net/cant/cant2.html

It is a dictionary resource for Sigil Slang or Planar Cant from Planescape campaign setting. Two players on my former server frankly had it mastered and it was always hilarious watching others trying to figure out what they were saying.

As to the OP though I am not a big rules stickler. (I know, I know, what the heck am I doing playing on ALFA =P). The DMFI version is fine for me and I found it fun and very useful especially during capers or spying operations.

[johnlewismcleod]

First off, let me say I really like Thieves' Cant. It can be hilarious, add some interesting flavor, all that good stuff.


PS - Like I said before, I like thieves (of any character class!) and thieves' cant well enough, just don't think they're detection-proof methods of communication. I would hate for an interesting exchange to be boiled down via widgets and tools into *tilts head, rubs ears* like a catcher signaling a pitcher, and have all observers lose out on something interesting taking place.

While I agree that simulating cant IG by typing in text can be fun, my experience with attempting this is that it is so difficult to relay meaning from one character to another that it is ridiculously confusing for players to use. There is no definitive cant dictionary to draw from, and even if there was a single source, the time invested in trying to memorize and use it IG is unrealistic.

When you say that you want thieves cant to be generated IG by players, the translation in reality is: "I think cant should not be supported IG". It is true that the gist of any means of communication should be discernable by a non-user from circumstance and exposure, but this can be resolved by opposed rolls.

Saying that giving cant language status somehow makes it indecipherable to non-users unfairly grants other languages now recognized IG the very status you object to. In RL I often gather the gist of people speaking spanish in my presense even though I don't actually speak it myself.

[Brokenbone]

Learning a few words of cant from some source or the other (http://www.thievesguild.cc/cant/english2cant.php) can be enhancing to the fun of co-conspirators, or putting them in the mouths of your NPCs as a DM, fun as well. Clarifying meaning through Tells is normally required for any new or rarely used terminology. IC confusion can be entertaining RP as well (ie., couple thieves agree on something, saying "Rum" to each other, and the alcoholic warrior they travel with starts asking why they're stopping for a drink... silly stuff like that).

As to language impenetrability: that's the firm SRD rule. See the "either know it or you don't" type stuff in the SRD, and "checks" are never made despite it looking like a d20 skill. However, generous DMs or fellow players could use discretion to maybe pick out a common word here and there (yes, no, hello, danger, where's the bathroom), from well known languages (Elven, Dwarven: yes... Ignan, Auran: no way), maybe proper nouns like names as well. "Hello bla bla bla bla bla bla Beshaba bla bla bla bla Alustriel!" Maybe some INT checks in the mix if the DM felt like it, again though, there's no "right" to know someone else's languages without spending valuable skillpoints. Poor man's method is still stuff like Bluff / Sense Motive, or other agreed on aliases / ciphers that may take a lot of practice to work out among tight groups (i.e., "Why do I have to be Mr. Pink?" related disputes possible.)

Again to be clear, I do not think Thieves Cant is precisely a language, and as such, it doesn't cost any slots, nor attract the "protection" of a full language, such as DMFI tools might handle by creating gibberish for non-speakers. Q: "Hey what were you guys speaking?" A: "Oh, we were speaking Thieves Cant, go away."

[johnlewismcleod]

K....just re-read my post and I think it seemed a bit more strident than I intended. While I respect your opinion on the matter, Brokenbone, I spent many months attempting to generate cant on Haze server amongst our thief players and it never really worked. Mostly it was the source for extraneous and excessive "Tell" dialogue between players trying to use it and agree on meanings of various phrases and words. It tended to bog us down with "Tell" traffic that broke the flow of RP. While it is possible my group and I were simply second-language challenged, I think it is probably more accurate that the two players you knew were simply second-language gifted.

I'd just like to say that I just came from a server that had cant as a language and it was a good RP enrichment tool IMO. When a PC said something in cant the emote was not gibberish, but was a type of "body language" i.e.:

a rogue might say: "Be ye spakin' cant, mate?", and the tool would emote: *blusters*

or "Know ye 'oo it were tha' knifed the sergernt?", and the tool would emote: *scratches arse*

Admittedly, it was a stretch for the text imput to be represented by the emotes generated, but for one of average intelligence who would still like to have the option of RPing a gifted rogue, it was a wonderful tool and has my vote.

Like I said, no disrespect of your opinion intended, I just disagree.

[AcadiusLost]

Cant is indeed built into the DMFI tools, but it is "universal" (everyone who takes "cant" can understand anyone "speaking cant", regardless of where they are from). So, it amounts technically to a universal Subtle Sign Language.

ex: "Let's put the fake purple gemstone in the backpack of that old man at the end of the bar" becomes *scratches left side of nose* to the general public, but is absolutely understood by anyone with any rogue levels.

One would expect the "cant" of Waterdeep to be pretty different from the "cant" of Calimport, but the coded system doesn't really take that into account. I'd removed it as an automatic language for all rogues, though it could be reinstated easily enough if there is a consensus on it. If it were re-added, I'd rather offer it as a selectable bonus language than grant it automatically; it's uncharted territory in 3.5E where it's not explicitly covered in language rules.

I'll confer with the TSM DM team for their thoughts on the matter, but from an in-character perspective, I agree with Brokenbone's comments.

[edit: we have some customizations to DMFI that allow automatic Lore (will be Speak Language) checks to try to identify the language being spoken if you don't speak it yourself, with a secondary epic-level DC to actually translate an unknown language.]