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

[captcorajus]

It's very easy to assume that your reading is the only natural one, and that others who read the rules differently "didn't understand what they read".

But @Dausuul is not new to playing D&D, nor to reading rules. In my own case I've been doing both (in the context of D&D) for over 30 years, and I make my living reading rules (of a different sort) and teaching others how to read them.

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?

Okay... wait a second... pause while I blink and then snicker a bit. You are expecting a WRITTEN RULE to cover some obscure circumstance? Your question blatantly shows that you've missed the point entirely... and I don't mean to be offensive, but really?

The rules should be flexible enough for the DM to be able to adjudicate fairly situations just like you are describing, without a NEED to have every possible scenario referenced by the rules. I desire to spend my game session PLAYING... not looking up some bizarre rule that covers some obscure situation.

And to answer your question... its purely situational. and this is exactly why DM's were invented. Was the wizard actually in the process of LOOKING for the rogue when he disintegrated the wall? If yes, then, guess what, the rogue's 'cover is blown' so to speak.

If not, and the wall was just disintegrated due to some other circumstance, and additional cover is nearby, the rogue can attempt a new stealth check at disadvantage, and immediately check the result against the wizard's passive perception.

Thus, it seems to me, the rules already cover this situation.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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)

I have to say, while I liked the general idea of advantage/disadvantage, it wasn't until a few discussions here and then several sessions of DMing with the new rules that the elegance of the system really clicked. It makes so much sense, and makes things so easy.

The other rule that we love (and have hijacked for several other things) is the new Exhaustion rules.

The opposed check (I can't remember if that showed up in the course of 2nd or 3rd ed at this point), the d20 system, and advantage/disadvantage give a very simple, understandable mechanic that can apply to just about everything. I've been going through the 1st ed books again quite a bit recently and it's amazing how many different systems were used, with chances such as 33 1/3 (based on rolling a d6 for one situation), to lots of percentile rolls, to the negative AC system, to...too many different systems to count.

Sure, I can see the benefit of percentile, but how often do you really need to parse something by more than 5%?

So one thing I haven't settled in my mind yet (and haven't really felt a situation warranted it) - Can you have advantage on something that your opponent also has disadvantage on? This effectively stacks adv/dis which isn't allowed, but it's subtly different. I'm thinking in terms of a situation like an opponent who is climbing a slippery wall while you are using an ability that grants advantage. Having said that, I'm guessing the only time I think I'd really use it is for an important story element where the PCs really need to succeed (or fail) at something, and the circumstances have ended up very different than what I thought was going to happen. It's a little better than just fudging the rolls or completely railroading the PCs, but still makes the desired outcome very likely.

Randy

 

[pemerton]

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?

Good question. Start the thread and I'll cheerfully participate. (I think this thread is a bit too contested to be a good place to start that conversation, though. Having said that, I'll break my own rule and say one thing: I think it is good if rules use certain words that can carry different weight or meaning for different approaches to resolution, but the rules are pretty smooth however the word in question is interpreted - eg the Hermit rules can be applied both by a GM-as-tyrant group and a players-as-co-authors group, although the actual outcomes will probably be different, and the second group makes the hermit's discovery a more powerful background ability than the former group.)

 

[pemerton]

You are expecting a WRITTEN RULE to cover some obscure circumstance?

<snip>

And to answer your question... its purely situational. and this is exactly why DM's were invented. Was the wizard actually in the process of LOOKING for the rogue when he disintegrated the wall? If yes, then, guess what, the rogue's 'cover is blown' so to speak.

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.)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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'm sure there are many reasons. Part of it is probably because stealth is very situational and by leaving it more open ended it avoids problems like things being taking too literally (or so you might think...).

As for the backgrounds, I think that they are trying to put more of an emphasis on role playing and thinking about the character as a, well, character rather than just a bunch of stats. Note that they title things like 'suggested characteristics' and it notes at the begining that they are sample backgrounds. They also give you an opportunity to add more flavor, both from a roleplaying perspective and in actual game benefits, so you can create a unique character rather than 'just another fighter.'

But yes, I think that would be an interesting discussion.

Randy

 

[Psikerlord#]

I have to say, while I liked the general idea of advantage/disadvantage, it wasn't until a few discussions here and then several sessions of DMing with the new rules that the elegance of the system really clicked. It makes so much sense, and makes things so easy.

The other rule that we love (and have hijacked for several other things) is the new Exhaustion rules.

The opposed check (I can't remember if that showed up in the course of 2nd or 3rd ed at this point), the d20 system, and advantage/disadvantage give a very simple, understandable mechanic that can apply to just about everything. I've been going through the 1st ed books again quite a bit recently and it's amazing how many different systems were used, with chances such as 33 1/3 (based on rolling a d6 for one situation), to lots of percentile rolls, to the negative AC system, to...too many different systems to count.

Sure, I can see the benefit of percentile, but how often do you really need to parse something by more than 5%?

So one thing I haven't settled in my mind yet (and haven't really felt a situation warranted it) - Can you have advantage on something that your opponent also has disadvantage on? This effectively stacks adv/dis which isn't allowed, but it's subtly different. I'm thinking in terms of a situation like an opponent who is climbing a slippery wall while you are using an ability that grants advantage. Having said that, I'm guessing the only time I think I'd really use it is for an important story element where the PCs really need to succeed (or fail) at something, and the circumstances have ended up very different than what I thought was going to happen. It's a little better than just fudging the rolls or completely railroading the PCs, but still makes the desired outcome very likely.

Randy

I believe you can have disad on one side of a contest, and adv on the other side. Which yeah makes it highly likely the guy with adv is going to win. I can think of many situations where this might happen, eg: trying to keep a door shut/open. guy keeping it shut has lodged a big heavy table behind it, he gets adv. Guy on the other side trying to push it open is standing in the remains of an ice storm, ie slippery ground, so he's at disad, he cant easily leverage his full force against the door.

 

[Campbell]

I don't have any real issues with open ended rules. There's a reason why I brought up Onyx Path's recent work up thread. There is a significant difference between rules that acknowledge that there is room for GM discretion and table negotiation for how the procedures of play should work out and obscure rules that can lead to conflicting opinions on the way they work. One of the principles I rely on when playing or running RPGs is that the unfolding conversation of play needs to start from an honest place with as much mutual understanding as possible.

Let's take the way Vampire frenzy works in Blood and Smoke as an example. There are specifics on which events provoke a Vampire's Beast to rear it's ugly head and the text specifically calls out that this is an area where GM discretion and table negotiation are important. There's no surprise that the mechanics don't work in the way I think they do. There's no conflict about interpretations. Any conflicts that arise are going to cut straight to the matter of how our particular group is going to handle things in the future, rather than trying to parse out an unclear text.

 

[captcorajus]

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.)

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. As long as the interpretation is FAIR and everyone is having fun, it doesn't matter if there are 100 different ways to interpret the circumstance. What you have given evidence of, though, is the flexibility of the rules.

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.

 

[Uchawi]

But the one advantage 5E has over the majority of RPGs is hindsight. In that respect you would hope they would remove or address ambiguous rules from previous editions, and not make ambiguous rules a highlight of the system. Of course you can never remove all the corner cases, but that does not mean you throw in the towel.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I don't have any real issues with open ended rules. There's a reason why I brought up Onyx Path's recent work up thread. There is a significant difference between rules that acknowledge that there is room for GM discretion and table negotiation for how the procedures of play should work out and obscure rules that can lead to conflicting opinions on the way they work. One of the principles I rely on when playing or running RPGs is that the unfolding conversation of play needs to start from an honest place with as much mutual understanding as possible.

Let's take the way Vampire frenzy works in Blood and Smoke as an example. There are specifics on which events provoke a Vampire's Beast to rear it's ugly head and the text specifically calls out that this is an area where GM discretion and table negotiation are important. There's no surprise that the mechanics don't work in the way I think they do. There's no conflict about interpretations. Any conflicts that arise are going to cut straight to the matter of how our particular group is going to handle things in the future, rather than trying to parse out an unclear text.

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.