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

[Uchawi]

I am not sure anyone could develop rules to embrace a certain bias as specific as stealth or a similar concept. It almost sounds like a deflection or smoke and mirror to state it was intentional.

 

[pemerton]

Mearls said, in his interview, that D&D customers don't read read rules text very closely, and for that reason 5E rules are written to confirm whatever biases the reader brings with him or her. To me, this thread confirms he has accomplished his goal.

To relate this back to our earlier conversatin upthread, whereas I didn't feel that the stealth rules (compared to, say, the background rules) do a very good job of setting out the GM's role in interpretation and application, I think you're right that they do support reader assumptions in the way you describe.

Things are going to get pretty tedious if every thread for the next five-odd years boils down to people insisting that their understanding of deliberately ambiguous rules text is the only correct one.

I don't want to be too pessimistic, but I think you'll have to steel yourself for at least a dash of tedium.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I honestly feel like we have become too obsessed with D&D. to the point where we can't see beyond ourselves. There are better ways to write rules. Vincent Baker has shown this. Onyx Path has shown this. If the intent is for me individual DMs/GMs/STs to make a judgement call say that. Don't make me parse out your intent. Tell me what you actually mean.

I know there are a bunch more responses after this one that I haven't read yet, but...

You are also making a point that you may not be intending. There are and have been all sorts of other RPG rules systems out there. And while there are a lot of reasons for it, D&D is still the one that people play the most. Perhaps, at least in part, that's a reflection of the rules.

Having DM'd for over 30 years, I can say that I absolutely love the 5th Ed rules. They have a distinct feel of the 1st Ed game precisely because of the lean nature of the rules. But they are much better written and consistent than the 1st Ed.

I also find a lot of this discussion interesting, because in all that time I can't really remember any real problem regarding the rules. Oh, we've absolutely had discussions, but in the end we've found what works for us. And for most of that time I allowed pretty much any rule, class, etc. from any published material (of which I had 90% on hand). I ended up essentially compiling the rules we had into our own rulebook. And we've already done some of that with the 5th Ed.

Maybe it's because to me the purpose of the game is to write a collective story where the players are the heroes. The campaign is built (mostly on the fly) based on the players and their characters actions. If they are designing a character for a specific purpose, then I take that into account. My daughter is playing now, and she loves dinosaurs. She wants a pet dinosaur. I said we can do better, you can be a druid and you can become a dinosaur. The rules state that as a druid of the Circle of the Moon she can choose any CR 1 beast that she's seen. I don't have stats for a deinonychus right now, but the lion or tiger stats work just fine. She just looks different.

Organized play has been more (and less) organized over the years. But the RPGA was always pretty good about detailing what rules, classes, etc. were allowed, and which weren't.

I can say this - I DM'd the same campaign from the 1st Ed through the release of the 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and into the 4th Ed. There were plenty of reasons why it finally petered out at that point, but part of it was that none of us were particularly excited about the new rules. We could have stuck with 3.5, but it basically just signaled a good place to end it. I ran a few things in the 4th Ed but certainly not anything long term.

We loved the 3rd Ed rules because it basically made the 2nd Ed rules more coherent and less contradictory. It fixed some of the balance issues, and allowed us all sort of choices and specific bonuses and penalties for just about everything. But after you've done that quite a bit, you realize that a simplified mechanic to do the same thing without all the math is a beautiful thing.

As soon as I started going through the first release of D&D Next I was hooked again. It was everything I that I loved about the game. It was exciting again. So once the 5th Edition was officially coming out I went looking for some people to play with. I haven't purchased many 4th Ed supplements, but I'm back in 'buy everything' mode. And based on the sales figures that people have been reporting, the 5th Ed appears to be doing very well. Again, perhaps it says something about the rules.

I do wonder what the mix of people who prefer certain types of rulesets might be. Are the folks that like things to be more codified those that started playing in later editions? Particularly the 3rd and 4th? Are they folks like me those that started pre AD&D and 1st Ed?

One of the other things I like about a more open rules system are these types of discussions altogether. The early years of Dragon magazine were a lot of articles about rules interpretations and expansions. It got particularly interesting when Ed Greenwood showed up because there was a very distinct difference between the Gygax 'you must' approach and the Greenwood 'why not? approach. Obviously we lean very heavily in the 'why not?' side of things.

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. Of course, we still just picked what we liked and dropped what we didn't. But it meant that we ended up a lot farther from the 4th Ed rules than we had with any other approach, and really ended up with a hybrid.

In the end, I do see the rules as a common ground to support the cooperative storytelling. Clarity is important, but I don't think that means that all of that clarity has to come from the rule books. It should also come from the group playing the game. That doesn't mean I'm right, or that I necessarily oppose your position. It just means I'm very happy with the direction Wizards has taken with this edition.

Randy

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure anyone could develop rules to embrace a certain bias as specific as stealth or a similar concept.

You can do this if the rules are written with a certain looseness or incompleteness, but can work provided that the reader/player incorporates certain additional assumptions which are being supplied by experience with prior editions, or via "common sense", or whatever else (and Mearls et al will presumably have used the playtest to identify some of these).

Rules written in this way may frustrate those who are familiar with multiple, different RPG systems and are looking to the designers to project a clear account of how this particular system is meant to be played (I would put myself in this category), but [MENTION=6683099]dd.stevenson[/MENTION]'s point is that, according to Mearls' market research, those players are a (small) minority.

Not that it will frustrate all members of that small minority, though: both [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] belong to it, but apparently had little trouble making sense of the stealth rules.

 

[pemerton]

Are the folks that like things to be more codified those that started playing in later editions? Particularly the 3rd and 4th? Are they folks like me those that started pre AD&D and 1st Ed?

The issue is not necessarily about "more codified" rules. Or, at least, it's about what gets codified.

For instance, the rules for the hermit's discovery background feature are not very detailed, but they are very clear: the player and the GM work together to establish the relationship between the hermit's insight and the bigger picture of the campaign.

From my point of view, the 5e stealth rules lack the same degree of clarity over who is meant to decide what, and how.

And I have been playing D&D since 1982.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The problem is that much of stealth is all about remaining undiscovered by people who have the ability to see you.

For instance, if the rogue puts on a white suit and lies down in the snow, or puts on a mottled green-brown suit and walks behind some trees, it seems pretty logical to me that s/he might remain undisccovered even by people who can see him or her, because they mistake him/her for something else (snow; foliage).

The hide in shadow rules for Gygax's AD&D assumed that, once the thief took up a position in the shadows, s/he might remain effectively invisible even to people who could see him/her, because those people would not notice him/her.

If you can only be stealth when you're literally out of sight, that is - as I said - a rather punitive stealth rule. And doesn't seem to me to particularly favour rulings over rules.

Actually, I think that what you are saying is correct, and I think that the sentence 'you can't hide from a creature that can see you' does not negate that scenario.

The way I read it is this:

If a person is looking at you, you can't lie down in the snow and hide. Why? Because they can see you trying to do it. But if you are already hidden, then you can (attempt to) remain hidden, provided you don't move or call attention to yourself, which is also stated in the rules 'and if you make a noise...you give away your position.​

Now some abilities do grant you the opportunity to hide (become hidden) even when you are seen. Depending on the specific circumstances, I might rule that you do so at a disadvantage. For example, trying to lie down in the snow when somebody is watching you.

I do think that the rules could be clearer in this circumstance, but I (and our group) are very comfortable with our interpretation of the rules.

Randy

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If the authors of the rules intended to leave that gap - eg, to be interpreted by the GM - then it would have been very easy for them to say so. Their failure to do so is a reason to think that they thought the gap was covered. And that is a reason to favour my suggested interpretation, namely, that any visual cue ends hiding because you can't hide from a creature that can see you.

When rules are well-drafted, the exceptions are called out as such. The easiest way to do so, when the drafting is relatively informal (as is the case for RPG rules) is to use a word like "ordinarily" or "typically" before introducing the general rule, or to use a word like "however" or even the phrase "As an exception, however . . ." when introducing the exception.

Now I'm confused. If a wood elf can't become hidden when being watched in a light mist, what benefit does s/he get from his/her racial ability? Perhaps you're saying that a wood elf can remain hidden in a light mist whereas a human can't - but then you seem to be agreeing with me that a sufficient condition for a non-elf to lose the state of being hidden is for him/her to be visible (because "you can't hide from someone who can see you").

And why does the verb "to hide" denote the action of becoming hidden on p 60 of the PDF, but not in the rules for wood elves?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but your remark about wood elves is not persuading me that your interpretation is a simple matter of plain English.

They did say so, actually, in the introduction under the heading 'Specific Beats General.'

And before somebody jumps in here, yes, both rules are 'specific' in their wording. But the hiding rule is a general rule that applies to everyone unless there's a more specific rule (like a special ability) that contradicts it. However, depending on the circumstances, the DM could still rule that you can do it, it just might be harder (with disadvantage). They could also rule that you can't do it, but I tend to prefer the 'make it more difficult' approach in most situations.

Randy

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Now let's look at the definition of hide...

hide:
-put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others.
-(of a thing) prevent (someone or something) from being seen
-keep secret or unknown.
-conceal oneself.

conceal:
-keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed
-keep from sight

...

To address your other point... I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't become stealthy (really not seeing how this makes it clearer than using the word hidden but, ok) if you can be seen... the question is how do we determine if someone is seen after they've hidden... sorry after they've become stealthy?? The chances of seeing things are not equal and dependent upon environment, conditions, etc.having the chance to see someone does not equate to actually seeing them. That is where I feel your assumptions break down.

That would be definitionS of hide, and I think that is part of the problem folks are having. Because the rules are addressing several different types of hiding.

• One is being unseen (like hiding behind a tree). Everybody else knows (or at least think they know) where you are. Your location is known (and there are several statements in the rules about hiding about whether your location is known or not) but you are unseen. If you come out from behind the tree, they aren't surprised because that's where they expected you to be.
• Another is the scenario where you attempt to sneak into a room where nobody knows you are even there. I would consider this undetected.
• Becoming unseen and then successfully sneaking to a new location means that you are no longer just unseen, but also that your position is unknown.
• Note also that even though the rules say being hidden is 'unseen and unheard' that doesn't address the issue that several creatures have bonuses to detect you by scent.
• The rules state in several places that under certain circumstances your position is given away, and therefore you are no longer hidden. That doesn't mean that you may not still be unseen.
• Of course, you can be 'unseen and unheard' but still not be hidden because your opponent succeeds on their perception check.

So I would agree that the way the rules are written can be somewhat confusing. Part of this is the language used, and part of it is the fact that they are actually describing several different but related states. But when you think them through, they make sense.

Randy

 

[Psikerlord#]

They did say so, actually, in the introduction under the heading 'Specific Beats General.'

And before somebody jumps in here, yes, both rules are 'specific' in their wording. But the hiding rule is a general rule that applies to everyone unless there's a more specific rule (like a special ability) that contradicts it. However, depending on the circumstances, the DM could still rule that you can do it, it just might be harder (with disadvantage). They could also rule that you can't do it, but I tend to prefer the 'make it more difficult' approach in most situations.

Randy

I think that's the best thing about disadvantage. If your player wants to do something, you dont really think it's possible (or highly unlikely), but you dont want to just say no - just give them disad instead (and perhaps -2, and/or adv on other persons roll, and +2, or some other mix of modifiers to the roll to reflect how likely you expect the outcome ought to be)

 

[dd.stevenson]

To relate this back to our earlier conversatin upthread, whereas I didn't feel that the stealth rules (compared to, say, the background rules) do a very good job of setting out the GM's role in interpretation and application, I think you're right that they do support reader assumptions in the way you describe.

I think, if one is able to grok the idea that unclear rules have legitimate value, there are very interesting conversations to be had about which rules should be written unclearly and why. For example, why did wotc do stealth rules one way and backgrounds the other? Does their research show their customers tend to read background rules more carefully than stealth rules?

I don't want to be too pessimistic, but I think you'll have to steel yourself for at least a dash of tedium.

At least 5E doesn't say anything about the nature of hitpoin - oh, crap...