D&D 5E Attacking from Stealth. When you can / cant Hide - A thorough breakdown

[Eric V]

Of your two options beneath, I go with #2 in my game. It represents -quietly- coming up behind the target...to be ruined by stepping on a twig before the moment of truth (classic movie scene depicting a 1 on such a stealth check).

Rogues can always range attack from hiding with a thrown dagger or a crossbow, so they can benefit that way. It wouldn't break the game though to let the rogue run out from hiding and gank someone, although if they're dual-wielding then they're getting two attacks with advantage on both which essentially means four chances to get off their sneak attack dice. That's very strong, but it rewards clever play.

Other possibilities I've considered for letting rogues hide and then run out to gank someone:

1) You can remain hidden while using the dash action, but not while moving normally. So a rogue can cunning action dash, then immediately attack while still hidden. Doing anything in between would mean you're revealed.

2) You can attempt to run out and gank someone, but it requires a successful stealth check against their passive perception.

 

[Celtavian]

Stealth rules are fine. Fact is no matter what rule anyone attempts to write, there will be situations not covered. That's why 5E decided to keep it basic and vague. The DM will decide according to his understanding of the situation. It doesn't allow the kind of cheese we saw in rules that tried to hard code Stealth. Fact is if the DM doesn't think you can stealth, you can't. If he does, you can. Easiest and most clear rule there is. If you think the DM is wrong, prove it. If you can't, you don't get to do it. Period. No hard coded cheese involved.

 

[Uchawi]

The power of the DM has not changed with any edition and the benefit of clear rules has not changed either.

 

[Joe Liker]

The power of the DM has not changed with any edition and the benefit of clear rules has not changed either.

However, the likelihood that a player will try to rules-lawyer his way into a ridiculous advantage has varied widely among various editions, and attempts to robustly define the rules with a Magic: the Gathering level of rigor have tended to make that worse, not better.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, the likelihood that a player will try to rules-lawyer his way into a ridiculous advantage has varied widely among various editions, and attempts to robustly define the rules with a Magic: the Gathering level of rigor have tended to make that worse, not better.

It's not the rigor, it's the clarity and consistency. The stealth rules in 4E were fine once they revised them. I don't recall any loopholes post-revision.

The issue is that some game elements like stealth (/hiding) require interaction with several other rules: cover, concealment, perception, darkness, movement, attacking, etc. Because of that, a certain level of rules is required in order to avoid vagueness and rules lawyering issues. That does not mean that every corner case has to be covered, but it does mean that due diligence in design and playtesting between multiple sets of rules has to be done in order to avoid post-release issues like in 4E (and now, apparently, 5E).

As a simple example, with the first iteration of the 4E Battlerager, the designers did not take into account the minion rules. Battleragers therefore tended to be mostly immune to minions. A certain set of the rules have to be taken into account to avoid issues like this.

When the rules are clear and consistent with other rules, both DMs and players more easily understand them. When the rules are vague, those aspects of the game can more easily vary from table to table, or DM to DM.

 

[Celtavian]

The power of the DM has not changed with any edition and the benefit of clear rules has not changed either.

That's not true at all. The more rules written, the less power the DM has unless he wants to spend his time recruiting players that will use his house rules and accept his every ruling as law. We've all see how that went. The term "rules lawyer" grew to preeminence with 3E. I rarely, if ever, heard the term rules lawyer prior to 3E. It wasn't an issue because rules were simple and the power...a better word is purview...was wide and the only option.

We've already seen the benefit of attempting to make "clear" rules for everything. Doesn't work and makes the game overly complex. The benefit of "clear" rules has not changed save to acknowledge that because you write more about something, doesn't make it more clear. The benefit of simple rules that are still very clear has not changed either. DM decides how Stealth works on a case by case basis. Good DM and player will work it out so that it is effective, fun, and useful rather than some hard coded rule they both must follow absolutely.

 

[Celtavian]

It's not the rigor, it's the clarity and consistency. The stealth rules in 4E were fine once they revised them. I don't recall any loopholes post-revision.

The issue is that some game elements like stealth (/hiding) require interaction with several other rules: cover, concealment, perception, darkness, movement, attacking, etc. Because of that, a certain level of rules is required in order to avoid vagueness and rules lawyering issues. That does not mean that every corner case has to be covered, but it does mean that due diligence in design and playtesting between multiple sets of rules has to be done in order to avoid post-release issues like in 4E (and now, apparently, 5E).

As a simple example, with the first iteration of the 4E Battlerager, the designers did not take into account the minion rules. Battleragers therefore tended to be mostly immune to minions. A certain set of the rules have to be taken into account to avoid issues like this.

When the rules are clear and consistent with other rules, both DMs and players more easily understand them. When the rules are vague, those aspects of the game can more easily vary from table to table, or DM to DM.

How come I never needed clarity and consistency in prior editions of D&D and I had just as much fun playing the game? I don't think clear and consistent rules for every eventuality is necessary for a fun game. It is fun to come up with stuff on the fly sometimes and let it play out fast and furious with simple rolls or narrative power. RPGs are cooperative narratives. The rules should always be secondary to the story. 5E is the first edition I've played in ages where that was true.

 

[KarinsDad]

We've already seen the benefit of attempting to make "clear" rules for everything.

You seem to be equating the word "clear" with "abundant".

Too many rules is rarely a good thing. As is too vague of rules and rules that are not consistent with other rules.

As an example, earlier versions of the game had percentage dice for some things, D20 roll high for others, D20 roll low for others, etc. The advantage of consistent rules (roll D20, add modifier, match or exceed DC) is that the DM and players do not have to constantly look up rules.

 

[Celtavian]

You seem to be equating the word "clear" with "abundant".

Too many rules is rarely a good thing. As is too vague of rules and rules that are not consistent with other rules.

As an example, earlier versions of the game had percentage dice for some things, D20 roll high for others, D20 roll low for others, etc. The advantage of consistent rules (roll D20, add modifier, match or exceed DC) is that the DM and players do not have to constantly look up rules.

I never minded the different dice rolls. Never stopped us from having fun. Consistent rules didn't either. Complex rules didn't. I've had fun with every edition of D&D that has come out save for 4E. I know that is not representative of the rule system as a ton of players had fun with 4E. The rule system rarely matters for RPGs. You can have fun playing make believe with no rules. Kids do it every day.

What I look for in a gaming system is as follows:

1. Can I have fun with the system?

2. Is it well supported for play? As in plenty of monster books, adventures, and things to make playing it easy and fun.

D&D/Pathfinder has the right combos I was looking for. We played it. So far 5E has the right combination at a time when I burnt out playing the game I was playing (Pathfinder). House rules, different interpretations table to table, different styles, and all that kind of stuff has existed every edition. I haven't found a table yet that plays the game like our group does. Each table I play at is usually flavored by the DMs style choices that he implements with house rules, interpretations, and outright bans of material.

I never see the point of expecting clearly written rules. I prefer simple with open to interpretation. It's going to happen to anyhow. Why write too much on something someone should be able to figure out on their own. To bring this back to stealth my feeling is that if the player can prove the opponent might not see him sneaking up, then let the player stealth. We all know that some special operations soldiers are so stealthy they can walk up behind a person in an open field and gut them. We know camouflage can allow a person to stealth. I wouldn't worry too much about clear Stealth rules and handle any problems on a case by case basis. As far as halflings go, I wouldn't allow some goofy stuff like continuous hiding behind another character in the middle of combat. Hiding as the Halfling is sneaking up I would allow. Allowing him a hide check to gain Unseen Attacker benefits every round hiding behind his buddy is not something I'd be ok with. Once he attacks, his hiding is done unless he runs off and finds a good place to hide the other person might not find him.

 

[HisDivineShadow]

I don't see any problem with the RAW, and as a DM I will just interpret them on a case-by-case basis in a way that makes sense. This thread does seem to be painfully labouring the point...