D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[DaveDash]

Hiya!

Wall of text.

How come there are so many arguments about this particular "mechanic" then?

Here, Reddit, the official WoTC forums, and almost every 5e stream I have watched, people have had the same argument.

Every DM is house ruling this mechanic differently, from leaving it be, to disadvantage on hiding in the same spot, to simply 1/encounter.

Clearly, it's not clear.

 

[Celtavian]

You can't argue that to get around vague and unclear rules you should "Just use common sense".

D&D is not a game about common sense. Many core mechanics defy common sense.

I agree. Common sense is a bad way to do things as it will vary from table to table. I do think 5E is fine varying from table to table. I think it expects to vary from table to table. The only group that needs a consistent set of rules is Adventurer's League. I don't know about you but after dealing with the rules being tailored to fit Pathfinder Society, I don't want rules that are consistent based on Adventurer's League or whatever organized play group D&D works with. Maybe you like Adventurer's League concerns becoming the primary way for D&D to create consistent rules. I certainly don't want that. Then the rules become that groups version of "common sense."

I get tired of DMs who say "Its my game so you'll do what I tell you!". The DM is a player too, just like everyone else. Some groups are ok with vesting ultimate power in him, others are not ok with that, and the rule book is the contract that each player agrees to abide upon, just like many other games, including the very popular pathfinder.

One of the complaints concerning Pathfinder is the rule lawyering. DMs don't like that. It makes many DMs quit playing or not enjoy the game. And you're right, the DM is a player. He is the player that has the most work to do. If his players are doing something that completely wrecks the game, he gets to kill that...after a discussion usually. The DM isn't some kind slave to the players that they purchased or even their employee. He's a guy doing work that others often don't want to do to run a game so people can have fun, including himself. He isn't bound by any contract.

They have reached a point where the Pathfinder rules are so convoluted, overly-complicated with so many insanely over-powered combinations that DMs have to excise feats during play because they came out in some supplement they hadn't read creating some disastrous rules combination that destroys any semblance of game balance. Then when they do that, players that want to act like rule lawyers try to argue with them creating a tense, argumentative, and unpleasant environment.

5e is clearly aimed more at the former group than the later group, with the "story" having emphasis, milestone leveling being encouraged, and vague rulings not rules philosophy. That's ok, and I understand the design intent.

It doesn't mean however that some rules couldn't do with some clarity, or at least just completely ditch the mechanic aspects of them and go completely DM fiat.

After all the designers did say they will only errata stuff that causes arguments at the table. I'm simply chucking in my observations on things that not only have caused arguments, but where confusing in the beginning, and some (passives) still somewhat arbitrary and confusing today.

That's fine. Stealth doesn't cause arguments at my table. Then again we enjoy pulling out the ruler and thinking about whether someone could see someone at a given positions. Only takes a few seconds at this point. We play a pretty "realistic" style of game where the players don't do stuff like cast a fog cloud to nullify ranged penalties or hide behind the same box again and again. The rules seem to be clear for players like us that use a naturalistic play-style.

All we needed to know was the following:
1. You can sneak up on someone with a Stealth role as long as they can't see you which we translate as "As long as you're making a reasonable effort to be unseen and unheard, you can stealth."

2. You get advantage on the first attack against attacker when you attack from surprise or aren't seen. Once you attack they know your location and you no longer gain advantage.

3. Cunning Action: Hide: The rogue can move and hide on the run. If the target can't reasonably discern where the rogue is like in a forest or a warehouse with a bunch of boxes or in forest mist for a wood elf or a melee combat with a bunch of people for a halfing, the rogue can gain advantage for being unseen on his first attack throughout a combat.

4. If the target can see the rogue whether through process of elimination such as watching the only corner in a room the rogue is hiding behind or a single box, then the rogue doesn't get advantage and is seen.

We determined all this from reading the rules text. The entirety of it. Not just the pure mechanical stuff. But the examples in different areas of the book such as the Halfing and wood elf special ability. Unseen attackers. Blinded condition. Hiding. It all adds up to an easy adjudication of the above.

About the only thing they could add as errata to make the people that seem to need things made clearer is a sentence that says "The DM makes the final decision whether Stealth is possible in a given environment or situation." Add that sentence under Stealth for those that need it, WotC's errata problem with Stealth is solved.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

You can't argue that to get around vague and unclear rules you should "Just use common sense".

D&D is not a game about common sense. Many core mechanics defy common sense.

You can take the more simulationist approach and say lava = death and Rogues can't hide in a watched box, that's fine, but you can also take the more gamist approach where D&D is more of a game, and these things are all possible because they're within the rules.

I get tired of DMs who say "Its my game so you'll do what I tell you!". The DM is a player too, just like everyone else. Some groups are ok with vesting ultimate power in him, others are not ok with that, and the rule book is the contract that each player agrees to abide upon, just like many other games, including the very popular pathfinder.

5e is clearly aimed more at the former group than the later group, with the "story" having emphasis, milestone leveling being encouraged, and vague rulings not rules philosophy. That's ok, and I understand the design intent.

It doesn't mean however that some rules couldn't do with some clarity, or at least just completely ditch the mechanic aspects of them and go completely DM fiat.

After all the designers did say they will only errata stuff that causes arguments at the table. I'm simply chucking in my observations on things that not only have caused arguments, but where confusing in the beginning, and some (passives) still somewhat arbitrary and confusing today.

We get it, you're another hangers-on previous edition fan.

 

[Celtavian]

The thread count argument is never a good one, especially when it is often the same people arguing over the issue.

I don't think arguments are occurring due to the lack of clarity of the stealth rules. The issue is the usual problem of how stealth interacts with other abilities, specifically Cunning Action and the Halfing/Wood elf ability to hide in fairly common conditions. Hiding as a bonus action is an extremely powerful ability. It allows the rogue to do good damage while remaining out of harm's way. This often drives DM's nuts. Anytime a class can insulate themselves from harm while defeating an enemy, encounter creation becomes more difficult. When this happens, arguments will occur at the table as the tactic is employed repeatedly making encounters trivial. The invisible flying wizard drives DMs nuts. You can only justify countering them on occasion.

When I first read the entirety of Stealth, Cunning Action, and abilities that allow a player to basically Hide Kite someone, as a DM I was thinking, "This is way over-powered. I have to stop this." After doing more reading on the game and seeing how powerful everyone else was, I decided this is the rogue's power. He can move around like a stealthy assassin killing things that never see him. If I took that away from the rogue, then I would have to take away things like Action Surge and GWM from the fighter. I would basically have to take away from the other classes things that make them seemingly "over-powered". In the end, I would spend more time policing every class for over-powered combinations than having fun. There are a lot of combinations in this game that might be considered insanely powerful compared to what the opposition can do. So I let it go.

The rogue's ability to Hide kite is a feature of the class, not an issue to argue about. It's the class's power combat combination. You should be as liberal with it as you feel you can stomach without destroying the fun of your game whether it be verisimilitude or game balance. I think once people accept that the rogue can Hide Kite with a fair amount of ease in this edition, they will slow down the arguing. The DM and the players can discuss how they want to handle situational absurdities like hiding behind the same creature over and over again or around the same corner. It won't hurt the game either way. Rogue sneak attack doesn't do so much damage that it overshadows what other martials can do. They focused the assassin abilities on surprise, which can only happen at the start of combat. If the rogue spends time Hide Kiting someone in the right environment, the DM needs to have the target run. They're not going to win.

It creates certain ideas in the minds of enemies. You don't screw with Wood Elves in natural environments. You don't want to fight a Halfling rogue in a crowd or big battle. You definitely don't want to fight a rogue in places where he has lots of cover options or obscurement. It's all a bad idea. I'm ok with it at this point. Rogue's are sneaky bastards that get to kill people while avoiding you hitting them. DMs need to learn to live with the idea that a rogue is boing to be bouncing around the combat field hiding and smacking the target with Advantage. The poor bastard enemy is going to die trying to keep track of him while the raging barbarian, smiting paladin, or action surging fighter is in his face. Rogue's are one of the most dangerous classes in 5E. They are the martial equivalent of the invisible wizard in the right circumstances. I like that 5E pulled off a martial that can be effectively invisible throughout a combat with sufficient cover gaining all the advantages of doing so. No other version of D&D has pulled that off without ki or magic. Now we have the stealth assassin dancing about the room hiding behind corners, boxes, rocks, trees, etc, popping out and hitting the target while he goes, "Where in the Nine Hells did that SOB go. Another bolt in the neck. Dammit."

That is why I think stealth is creating arguments. Many DMs hate the idea of the "invisible" rogue that can attack without being seen on a near constant basis using a mundane skill. It's driving them nuts. Once they see it in action, it causes them to go to the boards to find support from others that feel the same way. The Cunning Action: Hide rogue sneak attacking from range is the martial equivalent of the flying invisible wizard. And DMs and other players that feel it is too powerful hate it. I can see both sides of the argument. But the side that likes seeing a martial with an amazingly powerful ability equivalent to the invisible caster enjoys it. The 5E designers pulled off giving the rogue an ability I only thought a caster or ki user would ever have using a mundane method that fits conceptually and mechanically. Kudos to the 5E design team.

 

[DaveDash]

I agree. Common sense is a bad way to do things as it will vary from table to table. I do think 5E is fine varying from table to table. I think it expects to vary from table to table. The only group that needs a consistent set of rules is Adventurer's League. I don't know about you but after dealing with the rules being tailored to fit Pathfinder Society, I don't want rules that are consistent based on Adventurer's League or whatever organized play group D&D works with. Maybe you like Adventurer's League concerns becoming the primary way for D&D to create consistent rules. I certainly don't want that. Then the rules become that groups version of "common sense."



One of the complaints concerning Pathfinder is the rule lawyering. DMs don't like that. It makes many DMs quit playing or not enjoy the game. And you're right, the DM is a player. He is the player that has the most work to do. If his players are doing something that completely wrecks the game, he gets to kill that...after a discussion usually. The DM isn't some kind slave to the players that they purchased or even their employee. He's a guy doing work that others often don't want to do to run a game so people can have fun, including himself. He isn't bound by any contract.

They have reached a point where the Pathfinder rules are so convoluted, overly-complicated with so many insanely over-powered combinations that DMs have to excise feats during play because they came out in some supplement they hadn't read creating some disastrous rules combination that destroys any semblance of game balance. Then when they do that, players that want to act like rule lawyers try to argue with them creating a tense, argumentative, and unpleasant environment.



That's fine. Stealth doesn't cause arguments at my table. Then again we enjoy pulling out the ruler and thinking about whether someone could see someone at a given positions. Only takes a few seconds at this point. We play a pretty "realistic" style of game where the players don't do stuff like cast a fog cloud to nullify ranged penalties or hide behind the same box again and again. The rules seem to be clear for players like us that use a naturalistic play-style.

All we needed to know was the following:
1. You can sneak up on someone with a Stealth role as long as they can't see you which we translate as "As long as you're making a reasonable effort to be unseen and unheard, you can stealth."

2. You get advantage on the first attack against attacker when you attack from surprise or aren't seen. Once you attack they know your location and you no longer gain advantage.

3. Cunning Action: Hide: The rogue can move and hide on the run. If the target can't reasonably discern where the rogue is like in a forest or a warehouse with a bunch of boxes or in forest mist for a wood elf or a melee combat with a bunch of people for a halfing, the rogue can gain advantage for being unseen on his first attack throughout a combat.

4. If the target can see the rogue whether through process of elimination such as watching the only corner in a room the rogue is hiding behind or a single box, then the rogue doesn't get advantage and is seen.

We determined all this from reading the rules text. The entirety of it. Not just the pure mechanical stuff. But the examples in different areas of the book such as the Halfing and wood elf special ability. Unseen attackers. Blinded condition. Hiding. It all adds up to an easy adjudication of the above.

About the only thing they could add as errata to make the people that seem to need things made clearer is a sentence that says "The DM makes the final decision whether Stealth is possible in a given environment or situation." Add that sentence under Stealth for those that need it, WotC's errata problem with Stealth is solved.

...which is what I actually said 50 pages ago, but I got a torrent of people trying to tell me that the rules are either perfect as is, or that I should lay the smack down on my player for having the nerve to argue against the All Mighty DM.

 

[Celtavian]

...which is what I actually said 50 pages ago, but I got a torrent of people trying to tell me that the rules are either perfect as is, or that I should lay the smack down on my player for having the nerve to argue against the All Mighty DM.

Sorry then, its a long thread.

I'm never been of the mind of the DM as King. I think the DM should be given latitude while he's running the game to make rulings that aren't argued. Once the session is done, then issues can be discussed. Sounds like you guys operate that way. That is similar to my group.

 

[DaveDash]

Sorry then, its a long thread.

I'm never been of the mind of the DM as King. I think the DM should be given latitude while he's running the game to make rulings that aren't argued. Once the session is done, then issues can be discussed. Sounds like you guys operate that way. That is similar to my group.

No worries. I did make the point ages ago (and after all these pages you can be excused for missing it) that the errata I'd like to see id making it much more clear that stealth is in the DMs hands. A lot of people came back and quoted the "Dm decides if you're stealthed when you approach.." as proof, but that's quite a specific ruling. If anything it implies the opposite.. "Here's the rules, this bit is more in the DMs hands.. the rest not".

I'm the only guy in my group who reads forums, designers tweets, or generally has any idea at all about the "rulings not rules" philosophy. Everyone else in my group knows everything they know about D&D from the books, not from Mike Mearls tweets.

When we played AD&D 2e, 3e, and 4e we did things RAW. That's just the way we've played. D&D is a game after all, and in those editions more or less had a complete set of rules. If the rules didn't cover something, it wasn't rocket science to make a ruling.

5e obviously has a different philosophy, and that's ok, but it's not obvious to people who don't follow the game online, and have come from the recent previous editions.

I've seen massive arguments about stealth on streams and such, and guess what, they're from people coming over to D&D 5e from 3e and pathfinder.

I think many posters here (not you) really have blinders on when it comes to this fact. I still haven't trained my group fully to let go of RAW, and I haven't done it completely myself yet. It's a challenge, and it also caused lots of dissatisfaction with 5e in the beginning (which has been outweighed now by the fun factor).

One thing I can agree with is that yes, such arguments are taken off the table. Let the DM do his thing then sort it out later. At our table the stealth thing came up out of game in that manner.

 

[Quajek]

Switching weapons mid-combat is something that takes time and is tactically meaningful. You want to drop your bow and draw your sword, sure, I'll go for that... but once you move and need your bow, you have to go back and pick it up.

I've played this way. It just led to everyone keeping all their non-throwing weapons tied to their packs with bits of string. Drop your sword to draw your bow? Now your sword is dangling from your pack.

Dropping your bow to redraw your sword? The bow dangles, and you grab your sword from where it hangs.

 

[Coredump]

I've played this way. It just led to everyone keeping all their non-throwing weapons tied to their packs with bits of string. Drop your sword to draw your bow? Now your sword is dangling from your pack.

Dropping your bow to redraw your sword? The bow dangles, and you grab your sword from where it hangs.

Do you have any idea what a complete pain in the butt it would be trying to move, let alone fight, with swords and bows just 'dangling' from your back pack?

Not to mention how the ropes would have to be short, which would limit the use of the weapon, or long, which would let them drag on the ground and get stepped on.
Not to mention how the ropes would get tangled up with each other.

 

[the Jester]

I've played this way. It just led to everyone keeping all their non-throwing weapons tied to their packs with bits of string. Drop your sword to draw your bow? Now your sword is dangling from your pack.

Dropping your bow to redraw your sword? The bow dangles, and you grab your sword from where it hangs.

Do you have any idea what a complete pain in the butt it would be trying to move, let alone fight, with swords and bows just 'dangling' from your back pack?

Not to mention how the ropes would have to be short, which would limit the use of the weapon, or long, which would let them drag on the ground and get stepped on.
Not to mention how the ropes would get tangled up with each other.

Yep. Sounds to me like a great opportunity to use the rules for disadvantage, as well as including a 'Dex save or check to avoid tripping over all your stupid ropes'.

If tactics like this were sound, they'd be used pretty much everywhere in history. With limited exceptions- straps on rifles, etc- they aren't.