D&D 5E I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[Imaro]

This thread has exploded since last night and honestly I feel like I'm just going in circles with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]. At the end of the day it's clear enough for me and my group and that's all that really matters. I didn't find it that hard to follow or figure out what happens in the majority of cases and it seems like a large chunk of posters were also able to figure it out... Guess there's really not much more to say since going uh-huh it is clear enough and uh-uhn it's not isn't really productive at all. Hopefully my breakdowns have helped some people but at this point I'll bow out unless something new arises in the thread. Thanks to everyone for the discussion...

 

[occam]

Just for fun: please point me to the rule in the Basic PDF which explains what happens when a rogue is hidden behind a wall, and that wall is then disintegratd. Does the disintegrating wizard have to succeed at a Perception check to notice the rogue?

Putting you in the role of the DM, and considering the lighting, presence of debris, specific actions described by the rogue's player, your DMing style, your sense of what your players enjoy… what do you think should happen? If the player disagrees with your decision, she can offer reasons why and the two of you can come to an accommodation. And it's OK if your decision is different than another DM's; at least, that's the approach taken by this ruleset.

 

[occam]

Back in the 1st and 2nd Editions this was also very evident in the game worlds themselves. By the release of the 3rd Ed it seemed like they decided that having essentially different games for each world wasn't a good thing, and they started to homogenize everything. The 4th Ed was the most extreme example of this 'the core rules must apply equally to all worlds' approach. And the game worlds have suffered for it.

Picking up on this side issue (I won't even mention hid-- uh, that other thing!), this isn't really true. If you stopped buying 4e material early, you may have missed out on 4e Dark Sun, which was arguably a better fit for the setting than the 2e original. Plenty of world-specific rules innovation there, some of which went on to be applied more broadly.

 

[Haffrung]

Tabletop RPGs are NOT computer games. That's their appeal... that you can do anything you want. You have a dungeon master that can interpret the situation and adjudicate what happens. The RULES are there to make things move along in a fair manner, and to provide a factor of randomness for events that require it. Its not a war game.

That's the crux of the issue. Some people regard the need for someone at the table to adjudicate and make rulings to be a weakness that should be patched with rules. Others regard it as a strength, and the primary appeal of tabletop RPGs.

 

[eryndel]

Why does the wizard not have to make a Perception check?

If the whole area was also shrouded in light mist, would the wizard have to make a Perception check? At disadvantage?

Also, it's not particuarly obscure - in place of the disintegrated wall, let's have a rogue hiding behind an upturned table and it gets pushed over so the table-top is on the ground and nothing is sticking up but the legs; or a halfling is hiding behind a friend who falls down unconscious; or a rogue is hiding behind a wall and an enemy walks around the wall to the side that the rogue is hiding on.

Even in this thread, there are multiple experienced D&D players giving different answers to these questions. That's not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but I regard it as sufficient evidence that the rules don't plainly convey one simple account of the stealth rules. (Contrast 4e: the answer is that no perception check is required unless there is a mist, in which case the wizard is no more likely to notice the rogue than before the wall was disintegrated. Contrast also AD&D, where the rogue will not be hidden unless there are still shadows once the wall is disintegrated or the table overturned.)

From my perspective, the wizard would get to make a Perception Check if s/he said something to the effect of "I disintegrate the wall, looking for that @#*!*^& rogue." To cite rules, from the ability check section on passive abilities, it states that a passive check can be used to represent an ability done repeatedly, or if the DM wants to secretly determine success or not. Noticing a hidden creature is specifically cited as an example and later on in the section, hiding rules are noted as relying on passive checks.

With this in mind, how I've run it at my table is if a character is not specifically stating an action and I just want to see if they notice something (such as a rogue behind the remains of a disintegrated wall), I would compare the DC with the passive perception of the character. If they stated they were actively looking, I'd let them roll (perhaps through the use of a Search action detailed in the combat section).

 

[dd.stevenson]

Good question. Start the thread and I'll cheerfully participate.

In this community, right now? I'd rather eat my own eyeballs.

From a moderator's perspective, there are pros and cons to enforcing tight restrictions on threadcrapping, and (for probably good reasons) ENworld has weak protections for threads with narrow premises. So until this community reaches a critical mass of people who accept what fifth edition has done, such a conversation would be impossible--barring a beefy ignore list.

Sorry.

 

[Ratskinner]

Woof! I agree with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], this thread did explode, and I feel like it would be going in circles to pursue it much further.

I will, however, sound some partial agreement with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] on the broader issue of stealthy activity in 5e. Even though I think the rules are fairly clear on hiding, I don't think they particularly clear on distinguishing or specifying how hiding and sneaking work with each other. (Which, I think is part of what Dausuul is getting at.)

To me, it seems like the rules, are written with the understanding that "hiding" and "sneaking up on" are two different things vis-à-vis Dexterity(Stealth) checks. However, that understanding isn't very clearly stated. So, while I know I plan on handling a hidden character who then attempts to sneak up on someone, I'm not at all sure that there wouldn't be other equally valid interpretations. For the most part, I'm good with.

 

[pemerton]

Hogwash. You can apply your line of questioning to any edition of D&D, or any RPG for that matter. That's the nature of RPGs.

Two things;

First, does the NPC who walks around behind the wall that my rogue was hiding behind need to make a Perception check to notice my rogue? If the area in which the wall is located is shrouded in fog, is that check made with Disadvantage?

Second, it's nonsense to say that "you can apply my line of questioning to any edition of D&D, or any RPG for that matter". My line of questioning has no analogue in 4e D&D, nor in Marvel Heroic RP.

a rogue behind the remains of a disintegrated wall

The remains of a disintegrated wall are a pile of dust. That's why I chose that example: a rogue whose wall is disintegrated is in plain sight.

stealth is very situational and by leaving it more open ended it avoids problems like things being taking too literally

What is "situational" or "open-ended" about "You can't hide from a creature that can see you"? That seems pretty categorical to me, not open-ended at all. And I'm not sure what counts as taking that clause too literally. The only non-literal interpretation of it is to ignore it, ie to allow that sometimes you can hide froma creature that can see you.

Putting you in the role of the DM, and considering the lighting, presence of debris, specific actions described by the rogue's player, your DMing style, your sense of what your players enjoy… what do you think should happen?

I think the Stealth rules would be better written if they said this, rather than said categorical things like "You can't hide from someone who can see you."

That's the crux of the issue. Some people regard the need for someone at the table to adjudicate and make rulings to be a weakness that should be patched with rules.

No. The crux of the issue is that, if the rules are as occam has stated them just above, then the rulebook should say that. Like it does for the hermit background.

yes, agree, where the devs intend a DM to sort it out, they should say so plainly, ala 13th Age. it's easier on everyone.

Agreed. This is why I think the hermit rules are better than the stealth rules. They are upfront about this.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I suspect this whole argument would be easier to sort out if they'd used "sneak" instead of "hide". The Stealth check doesn't seem to be addressing "does the monster see me" - it addresses "does the monster know I'm there?" In most cases from the cited rules, the PC attempting to use Stealth is going to be Moving Silently, not Hiding In Shadows.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , I think you're getting your "I think the rules are poorly phrased" needlessly mixed up with your "this is how I think the stealth rules should work" and it's making you kind of hard to follow.

 

[captcorajus]

Two things;

First, does the NPC who walks around behind the wall that my rogue was hiding behind need to make a Perception check to notice my rogue? If the area in which the wall is located is shrouded in fog, is that check made with Disadvantage?

Does he need to make a perception check? 1... if actively looking... yes. 2... if not actively looking, he'll use passive perception. That's clearly defined in the rules.

Does the fog affect the chances of the NPC discovering the rogue? That depends... is sight the NPC's primary means of detection? If so... then that's a DM's call. Once again, that's why they invented them.

You keep inventing obscure BS scenarios, that clearly the rules and any DM worthy of the title are able to handle. Your assertions have been answered... handedly, yet you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Second, it's nonsense to say that "you can apply my line of questioning to any edition of D&D, or any RPG for that matter". My line of questioning has no analogue in 4e D&D, nor in Marvel Heroic RP.

The nonsense is all yours my friend, of course I can, and I did. The same answer for 5e holds true for all of them. Apply the rules and allow the DM the freedom to make the call based on their table and their players. Its not this difficult... really.

You are one of these people that make a simple thing overly complicated.
Its an RPG. A story telling game. Not a computer game. Not a war game.
My suggestion is you should probably choose a different hobby.