Extreme self-preservation

[Ovinomancer]

What is allowed as "distracted" is of course a spectrum. Like [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION], I allow it once but then you have to move around. That's quite a bit different from banning hiding altogether. I just think there has to be a healthy balance.

If rogues needed advantage to get sneak attack I might change my ruling to make the class viable. They don't.

Absolutely, you do you, but... didn't you just sidestep the question about how your take on hiding is breaking your verisimilitude is a matter of narration? I'm interested in how people play games based on their perceptions of things rather than the thing itself. Here, the thing is hiding and the rules make it so that it's not really that big of a deal, even if the hider does the same thing over and over. It doesn't break play at all, in fact, it brings it closer to the assumptions the rules were built upon. So, then, the problem is really what each of us brings to the table ourselves in our perceptions of 'hiding'. You bring 'someone cannot pull off the same trick the same way back to back to back, that doesn't make sense to me, so I rule it doesn't happen." And that's totally cool. I used to do pretty much the same thing. I changed my mind because I examined why I thought that and made a different determination -- that bringing in my assumptions resulted in a game experience where we were often arguing about how hiding worked and if the rogue did this or that, would that work. So, I dropped it and let the rogue hide liberally. Now, to me, I dislike static games, so I added 'if you make a hidden attack from the same place the next round, your stealth check is at disadvantage.' I also moved the check to the point where it mattered -- ie, you don't roll stealth when you hide, you roll stealth at the point where you might be noticed. These two changes, while mechanically mostly irrelevant (stealth for focused hiders rapidly outpaces perception for almost everything, so usually stealth checks are formalities and disadvantage rarely is one), alters the perception of risk at the table, and suddenly the hiding characters made efforts to be more mobile and to change things up. I achieved my goals not through denial, but gentle nudging towards the goal I actually wanted -- more mobile and dynamic combats.

So, my question is really to try and understand why you want to limit hiding -- what's the end goal. It's likely you have a well founded reasons, or, maybe, you look at it again and find there may be a better choice to be made to achieve your goals. I've lately taken to examining what goals I want out of play and it's improved my play quite a bit. Not saying you haven't done that, just talking about my journey through the hobby and looking for fellow travelers. If you've already done this, I'd like to hear about your journey.

BTW, the choice to only roll stealth (or other things like disguise, etc) when it's actually contested in play has made a huge difference in tension and feel at the table. If you roll when you hide and get a 20+, you feel safe and don't worry much. If you're waiting until you pop out or the bad guy tries to target you, then you're nervous as heck while waiting and pay attention. It's worked yugely.

 

[Oofta]

Absolutely, you do you, but... didn't you just sidestep the question about how your take on hiding is breaking your verisimilitude is a matter of narration? I'm interested in how people play games based on their perceptions of things rather than the thing itself. Here, the thing is hiding and the rules make it so that it's not really that big of a deal, even if the hider does the same thing over and over. It doesn't break play at all, in fact, it brings it closer to the assumptions the rules were built upon. So, then, the problem is really what each of us brings to the table ourselves in our perceptions of 'hiding'. You bring 'someone cannot pull off the same trick the same way back to back to back, that doesn't make sense to me, so I rule it doesn't happen." And that's totally cool. I used to do pretty much the same thing. I changed my mind because I examined why I thought that and made a different determination -- that bringing in my assumptions resulted in a game experience where we were often arguing about how hiding worked and if the rogue did this or that, would that work. So, I dropped it and let the rogue hide liberally. Now, to me, I dislike static games, so I added 'if you make a hidden attack from the same place the next round, your stealth check is at disadvantage.' I also moved the check to the point where it mattered -- ie, you don't roll stealth when you hide, you roll stealth at the point where you might be noticed. These two changes, while mechanically mostly irrelevant (stealth for focused hiders rapidly outpaces perception for almost everything, so usually stealth checks are formalities and disadvantage rarely is one), alters the perception of risk at the table, and suddenly the hiding characters made efforts to be more mobile and to change things up. I achieved my goals not through denial, but gentle nudging towards the goal I actually wanted -- more mobile and dynamic combats.

So, my question is really to try and understand why you want to limit hiding -- what's the end goal. It's likely you have a well founded reasons, or, maybe, you look at it again and find there may be a better choice to be made to achieve your goals. I've lately taken to examining what goals I want out of play and it's improved my play quite a bit. Not saying you haven't done that, just talking about my journey through the hobby and looking for fellow travelers. If you've already done this, I'd like to hear about your journey.

BTW, the choice to only roll stealth (or other things like disguise, etc) when it's actually contested in play has made a huge difference in tension and feel at the table. If you roll when you hide and get a 20+, you feel safe and don't worry much. If you're waiting until you pop out or the bad guy tries to target you, then you're nervous as heck while waiting and pay attention. It's worked yugely.

I'm not sure there's any answer I can give you at this point that will satisfy you. I'm not doing this from a game balance perspective. I don't really care about game balance because I think having a truly balanced game is impossible. For hiding I simply make a judgement call on what makes sense.

Previous editions had hard-coded rules that went something like "if you are hidden at the start of your turn you can move 10 feet out into the open and still be hidden". This never made any sense to me. I can step out into the open? Right in front of the guard, drop trow and moon him before stabbing him while "hidden"? WTF?

We had to accept that even though the rule made no sense, it was the rule so therefore we had to follow it. Logic, reality (even movie reality), common sense be damned. It pushed narrative aside, kicked it while it was down and spit on it while growling "I'm a game dammit, not a fantasy combat simulator"

If someone is engaged in melee combat they are distracted. They're distracted enough to not properly block an attack by the rogue and suffer additional sneak attack damage. They may be distracted enough that they don't even see movement from the direction of the rogue before the strike so the rogue gets advantage. They will not always be that distracted, so the rogue will not always have advantage.

That's my story, and my ruling, I'm sticking to it.

[EDIT] P.S. see my standard disclaimer, and added "not" to always have advantage.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not sure there's any answer I can give you at this point that will satisfy you. I'm not doing this from a game balance perspective. I don't really care about game balance because I think having a truly balanced game is impossible. For hiding I simply make a judgement call on what makes sense.

Previous editions had hard-coded rules that went something like "if you are hidden at the start of your turn you can move 10 feet out into the open and still be hidden". This never made any sense to me. I can step out into the open? Right in front of the guard, drop trow and moon him before stabbing him while "hidden"? WTF?

We had to accept that even though the rule made no sense, it was the rule so therefore we had to follow it. Logic, reality (even movie reality), common sense be damned. It pushed narrative aside, kicked it while it was down and spit on it while growling "I'm a game dammit, not a fantasy combat simulator"

If someone is engaged in melee combat they are distracted. They're distracted enough to not properly block an attack by the rogue and suffer additional sneak attack damage. They may be distracted enough that they don't even see movement from the direction of the rogue before the strike so the rogue gets advantage. They will not always be that distracted, so the rogue will always have advantage.

That's my story, and my ruling, I'm sticking to it.

[EDIT] P.S. see my standard disclaimer.

RE the bold - noting for reinforcement that someone within 5' of an enemy (melee range) blah blah is also "distracted enough" to make ranged attacks disadvantaged, under fire enough they cannot just move away safely without an action and i am sure there are quite a few other places we can find vulnerabilities within the rules for being that close to the threats.

So, as a baseline for a condition/status "distracted" this seems a fairly solid basis that seems very consistent with 5e on a number of levels.

it would certainly pass my "My Stupid Rule" test. ("If i feel or would feel stupid telling someone how the rule works, i don't use that rule.")

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure there's any answer I can give you at this point that will satisfy you. I'm not doing this from a game balance perspective. I don't really care about game balance because I think having a truly balanced game is impossible. For hiding I simply make a judgement call on what makes sense.

Previous editions had hard-coded rules that went something like "if you are hidden at the start of your turn you can move 10 feet out into the open and still be hidden". This never made any sense to me. I can step out into the open? Right in front of the guard, drop trow and moon him before stabbing him while "hidden"? WTF?

We had to accept that even though the rule made no sense, it was the rule so therefore we had to follow it. Logic, reality (even movie reality), common sense be damned. It pushed narrative aside, kicked it while it was down and spit on it while growling "I'm a game dammit, not a fantasy combat simulator"

If someone is engaged in melee combat they are distracted. They're distracted enough to not properly block an attack by the rogue and suffer additional sneak attack damage. They may be distracted enough that they don't even see movement from the direction of the rogue before the strike so the rogue gets advantage. They will not always be that distracted, so the rogue will not always have advantage.

That's my story, and my ruling, I'm sticking to it.

[EDIT] P.S. see my standard disclaimer, and added "not" to always have advantage.

Right, okay. My point is getting to why you've made this ruling. Again, that ruling is that the rogue cannot hide at all in circumstances where they could hide a moment before (or that halfllings can't use their racial ability in combat, was that you as well?). Your statement above seems to imply uncertainty rather than certainty of failure. "Might" statements seem like it should be a check, but you've stated pretty clearly where you don't allow checks.

Again, this is fine, I'm curious as to what your goal is for this ruling: what does this ruling do for you?

You've stated that verisimilitude is a goal and I've asked uf a narration change might not achieve tge same goal without the ruling? Often, verisimilitude claims are due to a certain concept of how things work and a change in narration can remove tge issue. If that's just how you see ut, cool, no prob, not attacking you, keep doing it and have fun! But, I've made a few narration changes lately and it's surprised me how much it helps fix things I thought were issues. Just trying to have a conversation to see if you might also find something you like better because the pattern looks similar. But, your preference certainly doesn't have to be my way! You do you.

 

[Oofta]

Right, okay. My point is getting to why you've made this ruling. Again, that ruling is that the rogue cannot hide at all in circumstances where they could hide a moment before (or that halfllings can't use their racial ability in combat, was that you as well?). Your statement above seems to imply uncertainty rather than certainty of failure. "Might" statements seem like it should be a check, but you've stated pretty clearly where you don't allow checks.

Again, this is fine, I'm curious as to what your goal is for this ruling: what does this ruling do for you?

You've stated that verisimilitude is a goal and I've asked uf a narration change might not achieve tge same goal without the ruling? Often, verisimilitude claims are due to a certain concept of how things work and a change in narration can remove tge issue. If that's just how you see ut, cool, no prob, not attacking you, keep doing it and have fun! But, I've made a few narration changes lately and it's surprised me how much it helps fix things I thought were issues. Just trying to have a conversation to see if you might also find something you like better because the pattern looks similar. But, your preference certainly doesn't have to be my way! You do you.

Scene: fighter goes 20 feet down a well lit 10 foot wide hallway and engages the guard. The rogue is behind the fighter hiding around the corner. There is no way for the rogue to see the fight, or to know when to lean around the corner to fire a shot.

The guard is distracted enough by the fighter that the rogue gets sneak attack damage.

Is the guard so distracted that he won't clearly see someone stepping around the corner to fire at him? Or to run the 20 feet to stab him?

I would say no. Could I change the scene? I guess, but I don't think it makes sense in this case for the rest of the narrative and I don't see a reason to change that narrative to give one PC in the group advantage.

I don't bend over backwards to reward or punish any type of play. Red dragons aren't suddenly going to become vulnerable to fire because the wizard takes all fire based spells any more than a rogue will be able to hide every round in every environment. I set up scenes that make sense to the story and allow a fair amount of creativity when taking advantage of those scenes. But ultimately the scenes (and the narrative ) are set up because they make sense in the world I'm constructing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Scene: fighter goes 20 feet down a well lit 10 foot wide hallway and engages the guard. The rogue is behind the fighter hiding around the corner. There is no way for the rogue to see the fight, or to know when to lean around the corner to fire a shot.

The guard is distracted enough by the fighter that the rogue gets sneak attack damage.

Is the guard so distracted that he won't clearly see someone stepping around the corner to fire at him? Or to run the 20 feet to stab him?

I would say no. Could I change the scene? I guess, but I don't think it makes sense in this case for the rest of the narrative and I don't see a reason to change that narrative to give one PC in the group advantage.

I don't bend over backwards to reward or punish any type of play. Red dragons aren't suddenly going to become vulnerable to fire because the wizard takes all fire based spells any more than a rogue will be able to hide every round in every environment. I set up scenes that make sense to the story and allow a fair amount of creativity when taking advantage of those scenes. But ultimately the scenes (and the narrative ) are set up because they make sense in the world I'm constructing.

Okay. What if, instead, you said you weren't sure if the guard would see the rogue stepping out (running 20' is pretty extreme, I'm going to ignore that for now)? Could not a stealth check work to resolve this uncertainty, thereby providing the narration? Example:

"The rogue peeks the corner in a way that the guard doesn't see (successful stealth) and times his step and shoot such that the guard is caught unaware."

or

"The rogue peeks the corner but sticks his head out too far, alerting the guard to his presence (unsuccessful stealth check). The rogue cannot catch the guard unaware for now."

By changing the narration to suit the result rather than narrating and then backchecking to see if the intended action suits the already narrated result to determine the check, you can avoid the verisimilitude issues. Almost all verisimilitude issues can be solved by not pre-narrating the results, thereby not ever having a disagreement with the fictional positioning and the action taken. In other words, instead of saying "I don't see how that could happen given these things," say, "okay, that happened, what needed to be true for it to happen?" Stealth is pretty easy in this regard, you just say that a successful check means they opponent didn't see you in time.

Back to the 20' hidden run, it's okay to take some things and say, "nope." And if your "nope" is stepping out form around corners, that's great! I'm just trying to provide a way of looking at the game that's helped me achieve a game I like better (and, again, I was very much like yourself on these matters prior) because it meets my goals. I found that trying to fix how things in specific narrations worked to hampered my play and enjoyment and that not doing that made my game both more enjoyable and less likely to have rules arguments when a pivotal action was denied because my assumptions about how the narration worked differed from the player trying the action. Maybe you don't have this issue, in which case awesome, carry on! But, if you do, this might be a useful tool for you.

 

[Ancalagon]

I love it when the narrative is argued as the driving reason, yet they completely ignore that the target is also fighting two to 6 other guys.

If the target is fighting 1 to 6 other guys, well they get to sneak attack! They don't auto-get advantage, and neither do the 1 to 6 other guys.

Listen, as a *rogue* it's your job to engineer situations to get advantage.

 

[Oofta]

Okay. What if, instead, you said you weren't sure if the guard would see the rogue stepping out (running 20' is pretty extreme, I'm going to ignore that for now)? Could not a stealth check work to resolve this uncertainty, thereby providing the narration? Example:

"The rogue peeks the corner in a way that the guard doesn't see (successful stealth) and times his step and shoot such that the guard is caught unaware."

or

"The rogue peeks the corner but sticks his head out too far, alerting the guard to his presence (unsuccessful stealth check). The rogue cannot catch the guard unaware for now."

By changing the narration to suit the result rather than narrating and then backchecking to see if the intended action suits the already narrated result to determine the check, you can avoid the verisimilitude issues. Almost all verisimilitude issues can be solved by not pre-narrating the results, thereby not ever having a disagreement with the fictional positioning and the action taken. In other words, instead of saying "I don't see how that could happen given these things," say, "okay, that happened, what needed to be true for it to happen?" Stealth is pretty easy in this regard, you just say that a successful check means they opponent didn't see you in time.

Back to the 20' hidden run, it's okay to take some things and say, "nope." And if your "nope" is stepping out form around corners, that's great! I'm just trying to provide a way of looking at the game that's helped me achieve a game I like better (and, again, I was very much like yourself on these matters prior) because it meets my goals. I found that trying to fix how things in specific narrations worked to hampered my play and enjoyment and that not doing that made my game both more enjoyable and less likely to have rules arguments when a pivotal action was denied because my assumptions about how the narration worked differed from the player trying the action. Maybe you don't have this issue, in which case awesome, carry on! But, if you do, this might be a useful tool for you.

You simply run the game differently than I do. I think rogues do just fine without having advantage every round in every fight, and your suggestions simply don't fit my style.

Have fun and good gaming.

 

[Yunru]

If the target is fighting 1 to 6 other guys, well they get to sneak attack! They don't auto-get advantage, and neither do the 1 to 6 other guys.

Listen, as a *rogue* it's your job to engineer situations to get advantage.

Hence the hiding. Saying "you can't hide in the same place because it means the guy will be watching for it" just means that, if anything, the rest of the party should be getting (easier) advantage. Because the creature is distracted by the rogue. Or it's not paying attention enough that the rogue can hide.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I love the idea of a session by session setup for a massive dungeon delve, it would run great for my Rapan Athuk game, no worries if Cletus misses a session and what happens to his PC, etc. Each session is a new foray into the pit. But the staggering cowardice and constantly moving behind other PC is something else. Makes me think of the Red Dwarf episode where Rimmer has Kryten stand in front AND behind him so they just end up circling each other as they move down the hallway.