Allowing flexibility and a bit of vagueness in the rules in no excuse for bad rules.
I do not find 5th Ed's rules vague at all, not sure what the deal is on that one.
Allowing flexibility and a bit of vagueness in the rules in no excuse for bad rules.
I do not find 5th Ed's rules vague at all, not sure what the deal is on that one.
Explain how Sneaking works and get everyone to agree with you, and then we'll talk. There's all sorts of vague rules in 5e, that's the whole point of the idea of Rulings not Rules.
For me, this is a huge ask. There are other RPGs that don't impose this level of detailed technical management on the GM, and I don't see it as a virtue of D&D that it does so (if it does).
I believe you are wrong on this. Poor, unclear, vague, and rules that require extrapolation take time to adjudicate are not a good thing. I think I understand your overarching sentiment though which is DMs should feel like they have latitude to adjudicate things before the RAW warriors step in and say no it actually says this in the rules.I'm not trying to be on any 'high horse'; I'm simply stating that non-specific/exact wording is a GOOD thing, and I'm pleased as punch that 5e is written that way.
This is a non-issue for this discussion. Min/maxing does not equate poorly written rules. Certain combinations are clearly written and there is no debate on how they work. They are part of the rules. Other than they may be too powerful when coupled together there is no debate. This is something that occurs in any rules set. You may not like it but this has nothing to do with poorly written or vaguely written or unclearly written or require unintended adjudication from the DM type of rules.Feel free to play any way you like, but don't blame the rules for your lack of being able to min/max/power-build a character and "get away with it by pointing to specificity worded rules". That's not in the spriit of 5e from what I can see. If you want to min/max your guy, do so with the aid of your DM. That is how the game is written...massive input from the DM. Maybe think of the rules as an extension of the DM...and not the DM being an extension of the rules (if that makes any sense).
The meaning of the stealth rules is perfectly obvious. The problem is that it means one perfectly obvious thing when I read it, and a different perfectly obvious thing when someone else reads it.The explaining is in the text, really, seems so apparent, maybe some are for problems due to bitterness, what-have-you.
This has generally been my experience. Arguments about rules and break downs of trust are people problems that need people solutions, not different rules. If everyone there is interested in having fun and letting everyone else have fun, too, then these things are usually pretty quick to get settled one way or another.Regardless, the point is, D&D has always been a platform on which to build fun experiences and the people I play with have always understood that, so there's never really been any need for argument over 'rules'.
I would posit that if you find yourself in that situation, it might have more to do with the maturity level of the people you play with, than any issues with the rules themselves...
Exactly.So for me, RAI is less "Rules as Intended" and more "Rules as Impactful"
The meaning of the stealth rules is perfectly obvious. The problem is that it means one perfectly obvious thing when I read it, and a different perfectly obvious thing when someone else reads it.
Case in point: Wild elves have the special ability to hide when lightly obscured by natural phenomena (fog, foliage, etc.). Light obscurement imposes disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight. Does this mean you have disadvantage to detect a wild elf that is hiding in light mist?
To me, the answer is clearly no: Perception versus Stealth normally operates on the assumption that you can't see the stealthy creature at all, so this is not a check relying on sight. To others, however, it's just as clearly yes. This is not a corner case, either--it's going to come up literally every time the wild elf uses that ability.
Take another case: A rogue is hiding behind a bush, having made a successful Stealth check. She wants to move through the shadows to another bush. The area between the bushes is dimly lit (lightly obscured). If she were just standing between the bushes, she couldn't hide there, since she's visible; but she's already successfully hidden. Does she lose that state as soon as she leaves the first bush? Do hidden creatures have to maintain eligibility to hide every instant, or is the "hidden" state something that has a high barrier to entry but a lower threshold to maintain once you succeed in hiding?
I say that barring unusual circumstances, you have to be eligible to hide every instant. Others say you can stay hidden even if you no longer meet the requirements to become hidden.
The meaning of the stealth rules is perfectly obvious. The problem is that it means one perfectly obvious thing when I read it, and a different perfectly obvious thing when someone else reads it.
Case in point: Wild elves have the special ability to hide when lightly obscured by natural phenomena (fog, foliage, etc.). Light obscurement imposes disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight. Does this mean you have disadvantage to detect a wild elf that is hiding in light mist?
To me, the answer is clearly no: Perception versus Stealth normally operates on the assumption that you can't see the stealthy creature at all, so this is not a check relying on sight. To others, however, it's just as clearly yes. This is not a corner case, either--it's going to come up literally every time the wild elf uses that ability.
Take another case: A rogue is hiding behind a bush, having made a successful Stealth check. She wants to move through the shadows to another bush. The area between the bushes is dimly lit (lightly obscured). If she were just standing between the bushes, she couldn't hide there, since she's visible; but she's already successfully hidden. Does she lose that state as soon as she leaves the first bush? Do hidden creatures have to maintain eligibility to hide every instant, or is the "hidden" state something that has a high barrier to entry but a lower threshold to maintain once you succeed in hiding?
I say that barring unusual circumstances, you have to be eligible to hide every instant. Others say you can stay hidden even if you no longer meet the requirements to become hidden.
But they don't! They quite specifically do not. If you are unseen, you only have the potential to become hidden. You still have to make a Stealth check. It is possible to be unseen--even invisible--yet not hidden.All of the confusion on this issue stems from the fact that the 5E rules strictly define hidden as being unseen rather than being unperceived.
The question is not "When can you hide?" but "Are the requirements for hiding (transitioning from un-hidden to hidden) different from the requirements for staying hidden?" Since I think the answer is, "No, they are not different," I'm not going to try and argue the contrary position. But there are people who do argue the contrary, and so far as I can tell they're quite sincere about it based on their reading of the rules. Same thing with the wild elf question, which you didn't address.If you have heavy obscurement, you can hide, otherwise, without an exception, you can't.