D&D 5E Stealth & that big Rock!

[The Crimson Binome]

You cannot claim that your position on that is somehow an issue that was settled long ago, because no one but you appears to take that position.

You don't have enough information to determine that. The one thing that everyone in this thread has in common is that we have all posted in this thread, and there's no reason why someone would show up in this thread if they'd already settled the issue long ago.

It's not surprising that nobody else is here to agree with me. The surprise is that someone bothered to actually check this thread, to make sure that the previous consensus is still being upheld.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Um...pretty sure Nocteum settled this over in the Wizards forum. He pretty much wrote the guide on it.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

Also something missing in this discussion. You only need total concealment or cover to BECOME hidden. I believe you only need partial concealment or cover to REMAIN hidden. So poking your head up doesn't remove hidden until you attack.

I was pretty sure I read this, but went hunting for it in the PHB and couldn't find it. The hiding rules are kind of a mess in there anyway. Anyone else remember this?

Coulden't find anything about remaining hidden

some lines from the hiding rules page 177
When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding,
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you,
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.

basicly you become discovered as soon as a creature has line of sight to you.

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]

Yep, a claim that this was settled long ago when you're taking an extreme position toward a situation that doesn't even work the way you keep explaining it does? Tsk.

Could you provide any evidence of this consensus? Who agreed to it? And even if you can, why are we now bound to agree to the same consensus when no one here seems to agree with what you're claiming. You speak in absolutes when the rules specifically give options for a DM.. Beyond that, you keep ignoring official errata which would contradict you. You quote rule that don't even agree with you. I think everyone participating is capable of seeing that except you. Confirmation bias and being stuck in an echo chamber are real things you know?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Confirmation bias and being stuck in an echo chamber are real things you know?

Yes, that is something which you should keep in mind.

There's enough wiggle room for DM interpretation that you could go either way, even if the actual words on the page have an obvious meaning that you all want to ignore. If you're not open to being convinced, then there's no point in arguing it.

 

[Noctem]

Coulden't find anything about remaining hidden

some lines from the hiding rules page 177
When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding,
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you,
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.

Basically you become discovered as soon as a creature has line of sight to you.

You're making the same mistakes as Saelorn. The text you just quoted is out-dated after the errata which was released to specifically change how stealth works. The rules text you quoted also specifies that you would only "usually" be seen if you come out of hiding AND approach another creature, which just like Saelorn you're conveniently ignoring. Here's the errata which was released:

Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.

 

[Noctem]

Yes, that is something which you should keep in mind.

There's enough wiggle room for DM interpretation that you could go either way, even if the actual words on the page have an obvious meaning that you all want to ignore. If you're not open to being convinced, then there's no point in arguing it.

Right.. "I know you are, but what am I".. Let's go back to our teen years

It's good though that you're slowly changing what you're saying. First it's "no that's not how it works" and now it's "there's enough wiggle room for DM interpretation that you could go either way". Seeking the middle ground. That's good. But you should really remember that you have no authority over RAI. If you really want to know the meaning behind the words, why not go ask on twitter

You're beyond the possibility to convince Saelorn, you're more than happy inventing meaning behind rules that support your vision instead of reading the rules to see how things work.

 

[slaughterj]

You don't have enough information to determine that. The one thing that everyone in this thread has in common is that we have all posted in this thread, and there's no reason why someone would show up in this thread if they'd already settled the issue long ago.

It's not surprising that nobody else is here to agree with me. The surprise is that someone bothered to actually check this thread, to make sure that the previous consensus is still being upheld.

Notably you did not address this part of my statement: "During combat, a Rogue goes behind total cover, makes a successful stealth check and is hidden, and then peeks around the corner in order to make a ranged sneak attack. You are the only I have ever seen take the extreme position that because the Rogue shows a bit of himself in order to make such an attack, that the Rogue is therefore seen by his foe and unable to sneak attack."

That is what you are saying, but NO ONE agrees with that position. Even under the original rules, no one really believed that, but just in case, the errata added in the "not clearly seen" language to make the situations clearer, yet you continue to appear to disregard that errata. What does the errata apply to, if not a situation such as the one I quoted?

I get that you might not want a Rogue to readily spam ranged sneak attack from dashing behind total cover and peeking back out each round, perhaps because you feel it unbalancing to get advantage repeatedly that way, and the DM has some discretion to dial that back, but not to the absolute extreme you are going with it. And as a practical matter, there are plenty of combats where a Rogue can't get that positioning anyway, or even if they do, their allies are in the way and providing cover to the foe, effectively halving the advantage anyway, so the Rogue getting some advantage from time to time to for some ranged sneak attack isn't that big of a deal, and in fact is expected else why bother including it as a route for sneak attack (if it was all about surprise from hidden before combat, it could have been set up like the assassin's ability instead).

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

You're making the same mistakes as Saelorn. The text you just quoted is out-dated after the errata which was released to specifically change how stealth works. The rules text you quoted also specifies that you would only "usually" be seen if you come out of hiding AND approach another creature, which just like Saelorn you're conveniently ignoring. Here's the errata which was released:

Hiding (p. 177). The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.

I guess your right the errata slipped my mind for a minute.
But can we still agree that if a creature has a clear line of sight to you can't be hidden ?

seeing something clerly is not defined in the rules
so when you pup up your head and part of your arm to make a range attack you might still need some obscurement between you and the target when makng the attack?

 

[slaughterj]

I guess your right the errata slipped my mind for a minute.
But can we still agree that if a creature has a clear line of sight to you can't be hidden ?

If most of you is visible, sure.

seeing something clerly is not defined in the rules
so when you pup up your head and part of your arm to make a range attack you might still need some obscurement between you and the target when makng the attack?

No, you would not be clearly seen, as most of you is hidden behind the rock.