D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[DaveDash]

From the Basic Rules:

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. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.​

The rules make it pretty clear if you're visible you're spotted unless the DM rules otherwise. Not that you're unseen unless the DM rules otherwise. The DM always has to allow you to remain hidden.
I'm not sure how the rules could have been more clear that it's the DM's call.

That rule is very specific to approaching a creature.

By RAW a Rogue can hide behind a barrel each round, and provided his stealth check is high enough (very likely), he gains advantage on that attack. Over and over.

Most DMs choose to house rule that, and that's a good indication for a candidate for errata.

 

[redrick]

That rule is very specific to approaching a creature.

By RAW a Rogue can hide behind a barrel each round, and provided his stealth check is high enough (very likely), he gains advantage on that attack. Over and over.

Most DMs choose to house rule that, and that's a good indication for a candidate for errata.

Sure, he can hide behind the barrel, but he has to pop out from behind the barrel to shoot. If you can be seen, you are not hidden. I don't think any house rule is required to say that the barrel will be under a lot of visual scrutiny if it starts shooting at people.

On the other hand, if you are hiding in darkness or masking of the wild behind foliage, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to fade away every round and re-attack from hiding. Part of the advantage of being hidden is that I can't see you drawing and aiming your shot, so I have no time to raise my shield, dodge, shoot back at you, or whatever.

At the end of the day, sneak attack is something that is meant to be possible most of the time. All you need is an ally in melee with your target.

 

[DaveDash]

Sure, he can hide behind the barrel, but he has to pop out from behind the barrel to shoot. If you can be seen, you are not hidden. I don't think any house rule is required to say that the barrel will be under a lot of visual scrutiny if it starts shooting at people.

On the other hand, if you are hiding in darkness or masking of the wild behind foliage, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to fade away every round and re-attack from hiding. Part of the advantage of being hidden is that I can't see you drawing and aiming your shot, so I have no time to raise my shield, dodge, shoot back at you, or whatever.

At the end of the day, sneak attack is something that is meant to be possible most of the time. All you need is an ally in melee with your target.

Ok based on that logic, Rogues can never gain advantage under any circumstance, because as soon as they expose themselves to fire (you have to have LOS to see what you're shooting at), stealth breaks down and you're no longer hidden.

Another rules issue.

And it's not sneak attack that's the issue, it's gaining advantage 90% of the time in combat that's the issue, especially from the same spot.

 

[Jester David]

That rule is very specific to approaching a creature.

By RAW a Rogue can hide behind a barrel each round, and provided his stealth check is high enough (very likely), he gains advantage on that attack. Over and over.

Most DMs choose to house rule that, and that's a good indication for a candidate for errata.

This is a great example for how tight stealth rules would break down. The character has cover with the barrel, and cannot be seen. So they can use stealth. But it's ridiculous to expect people to be continually and repeatedly surprised when someone pops out from behind the barrel. Yes, you cannot be seen behind the barrel, but the enemy knows your position. You're not undetected.

But, in theory, the rogue could wait until the enemy is distracted, run elsewhere, re-hide, and attack while they're staring at the barrel. But that's trickier.

 

[DaveDash]

This is a great example for how tight stealth rules would break down. The character has cover with the barrel, and cannot be seen. So they can use stealth. But it's ridiculous to expect people to be continually and repeatedly surprised when someone pops out from behind the barrel. Yes, you cannot be seen behind the barrel, but the enemy knows your position. You're not undetected.

But, in theory, the rogue could wait until the enemy is distracted, run elsewhere, re-hide, and attack while they're staring at the barrel. But that's trickier.

It's an example of how the CURRENT stealth rules ARE breaking down.

You think its silly, I think its silly, but our Rogue player did not. He believed I was RAI and a class frsture, and was pissed off when the DM "needed" him. We argued about it out of game for hours, dug through multiple threads all with the same arguments and counter arguments.

A simple "You gain disadvantage.." Or even better at the start of the stealth rules (which are badly written in general and all over the book) a big disclaimer saying "Its up to the DM on how this ALL works, because its too hard to get right in every circumstance - check with your DM" would have gone a long way.

Not everyone is into the whole rulings not rules philosophy, especially coming from pathfinder/3.5 etc.

EDIT: Posting on this site on mobile is infuriating more than stealth rules. "Needed" = "Nerfed".

 

[redrick]

Ok based on that logic, Rogues can never gain advantage under any circumstance, because as soon as they expose themselves to fire (you have to have LOS to see what you're shooting at), stealth breaks down and you're no longer hidden.

Another rules issue.

And it's not sneak attack that's the issue, it's gaining advantage 90% of the time in combat that's the issue, especially from the same spot.

"However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted."

DM's discretion. If nobody knows you're behind the barrel, they won't be keeping a careful watch on the barrel, and they won't necessarily see you in the brief moment it takes to pop out before firing your arrow.

The rules on hiding are very restrictive when it comes to sight, which allows the DM to then relax them as needed by saying, "You could be seen, but in the time it would take you to perform that action, nobody would be looking (unless you make a lot of noise with a shoddy stealth roll.)"

Anyway, I don't mean to turn this into another tortured debate of hiding rules. In my opinion, the rules as written have been very easy to adjudicate at my table. Players have, on occasion, argued the theory of it, because a more lax interpretation will increase their character power, but the rules and common sense tend to line up pretty well.

 

[DaveDash]

"However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted."

DM's discretion. If nobody knows you're behind the barrel, they won't be keeping a careful watch on the barrel, and they won't necessarily see you in the brief moment it takes to pop out before firing your arrow.

The rules on hiding are very restrictive when it comes to sight, which allows the DM to then relax them as needed by saying, "You could be seen, but in the time it would take you to perform that action, nobody would be looking (unless you make a lot of noise with a shoddy stealth roll.)"

Anyway, I don't mean to turn this into another tortured debate of hiding rules. In my opinion, the rules as written have been very easy to adjudicate at my table. Players have, on occasion, argued the theory of it, because a more lax interpretation will increase their character power, but the rules and common sense tend to line up pretty well.

Again, that rule is specific to approaching a creature. Not hiding around the same pillar/corner/barrel over and over, and gaining an effective +5 on all your attacks.

The whole purpose or the wording you and Jester have quoted is because the stealth rules are so clumsy, Rogues cannot sneak up and backstab someone. That's why that exception is there.

 

[Jester David]

It's an example of how the CURRENT stealth rules ARE breaking down.

You think its silly, I think its silly, but our Rogue player did not. He believed I was RAI and a class frsture, and was pissed off when the DM "needed" him. We argued about it out of game for hours, dug through multiple threads all with the same arguments and counter arguments.

A simple "You gain disadvantage.." Or even better at the start of the stealth rules (which are badly written in general and all over the book) a big disclaimer saying "Its up to the DM on how this ALL works, because its too hard to get right in every circumstance - check with your DM" would have gone a long way.

Not everyone is into the whole rulings not rules philosophy, especially coming from pathfinder/3.5 etc.

EDIT: Posting on this site on mobile is infuriating more than stealth rules. "Needed" = "Nerfed".

If you argued for hours, the problem is with the player not the rules. Even in the even of terrible, ungodly bad rules the player makes their case and accepts the DM's ruling then moved the eff on. Anything after that is on them and not the rules. At worst they can bring it up again after the game. Keeping arguing is indicative of not liking the ruling, of player entitlement, which wouldn't go away no matter how many disclaimers were worked into the stealth rules.

Stealth explicitly mentions it's up to the DM to make a call. It's right there in the rules. Saying it a second if third time is redundant.
This way DMs can let their players snipe repeatedly from behind a barrel if they want OR give them disadvantage to re-hide OR have them be detected and require extraordinary action to re-hide. They can choose what fits their game. (Or the individual encounter as skeletons might be fooled by a barrel but kobolds might not.)
Stealth is archetypal of there not being "one true way" to handle a game.

 

[Hriston]

Again, that rule is specific to approaching a creature. Not hiding around the same pillar/corner/barrel over and over, and gaining an effective +5 on all your attacks.

The whole purpose or the wording you and Jester have quoted is because the stealth rules are so clumsy, Rogues cannot sneak up and backstab someone. That's why that exception is there.

OK, what about the rule that says you reveal your position when you attack from hiding? I think that covers the situation you're describing even if you don't count popping out into LOS as "approaching".

 

[Jester David]

Again, that rule is specific to approaching a creature. Not hiding around the same pillar/corner/barrel over and over, and gaining an effective +5 on all your attacks.

The whole purpose or the wording you and Jester have quoted is because the stealth rules are so clumsy, Rogues cannot sneak up and backstab someone. That's why that exception is there.

Okay then, that sentence ONLY applies when approaching a creature. Therefore you can never re-hide. Period.
Because the rules clearly say the DM *can* allow you to remain hidden and approach creatures but says nothing about hiding in combat when *not* approaching creatures, so it just cannot be done.
Okay, good conversation people. What's next?