D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Flamestrike]

In the chaos of combat a monster may not even know where the arrow came from, let alone be able to focus on the Rogue firing it.

He sure is hidden if the monsters is distracted by the huge raging Barbarian in it's face.

I dont get this. The arrow to the neck is just as much of a threat as the axe to the face. In fact, the weedy looking dude with the pointy hat lurking all the way at the back of the room is probably the even bigger threat than the hairy dude in front of you with an axe. That poindexter in the hat can probably kill you by pointing at you and saying a single word.

While flying.

That said, I've always maintained that its totally OK if you (as the DM) rule that the monster wasnt looking, was distracted and missed the Rogues attack and allow a second Hide attempt (likely at disadvantage). I sometimes allow the same thing myself. Depends on the circumstances.

I just make a ruling and run with it. One that makes sense, is fun, balanced and consistent.

But it is a rule, because the designers attempted at creating mechanics around it. It's not a plain English phrase.

Read that sidebar again and tell me its written as a game rule.

Compare it to the text of a feat or class feature.

Please. This will help you interpret it. Look at the context.

That's your interpretation of the rules. The Rogue player still has a valid argument that they are not watching, they're focused on the raging Barbarian with the huge battle axe. DM disagrees, argument ensures.

Why? How can the Rogue player argue with you about what the creature (run by you) notices? He cant argue with the other players about what they're noticing.

It's your monster. You rule what it does and doesn't notice. By default its assumed to notice the Rogue as soon as he breaks hiding, and will forever more (unless the Rogue can get to a place where the Monster no longer knows where he is). Simply by allowing the Rogue to occasionally try again with disadvantage despite being under observation by a monster is allowing the Rogue to do something he normally couldn't do.

And if the player keeps arguing after that, point him to the bit in the Rule book that refers to 'DM's call'. If he keeps arguing for an hour after that after that politely pull him aside and remind him it's a game and he needs to chill out.

In fact "Watching" the Rogue is covered in rules by them spending their action to find a hidden creature.

Nah Bro. That's searching. As in: 'I suspect this warehouse contains a hidden creature; I'll actively stop and listen and look around intently and carefully'

Passive perception is just always on. Its what you pick up without actively trying.

Again, your interpretation of the rules, one I agree with, but one that can also be argued against. And there is no rule to fall back on, so it comes down to cops and robbers again.

Try and argue with it at my table. I'll listen to your rule, explain why I think it works the way I do. Listen to your argument. Quick check of the rulebook, then make a call; this is how it works. For everyone. We can talk about it later after the session. After that time, its how it works for ever.

I have my own idea on how stealth works, and it's very similar to yours. You seem to be missing the point however that a vague rule like this causes arguments at the table.

Arguments happen, but its up to the DM to put a stop to them. No rule discussion lasts longer than 1 minute in my games; the player gets a chance to correct the DM on a rule but ultimately the DM's interpretation trumps the players. If there is no resolution, then DM's call (which we all agree to abide by no matter who is DM), discuss it after the game or during the week.

I certainly wouldnt let a player crap on to me about it for an hour afterwards, or argue with me (or whoever was DMing) at the table. That's just poor sportsmanship.

 

[DaveDash]

I dont get this. The arrow to the neck is just as much of a threat as the axe to the face. In fact, the weedy looking dude with the pointy hat lurking all the way at the back of the room is probably the even bigger threat than the hairy dude in front of you with an axe. That poindexter in the hat can probably kill you by pointing at you and saying a single word.

While flying.

That said, I've always maintained that its totally OK if you (as the DM) rule that the monster wasnt looking, was distracted and missed the Rogues attack and allow a second Hide attempt (likely at disadvantage). I sometimes allow the same thing myself. Depends on the circumstances.

I just make a ruling and run with it. One that makes sense, is fun, balanced and consistent.

Ruling things like where monsters are looking is just asking for the game to grind down to a halt. That's the last thing the DM should be dealing with when he is already dealing with information overload. That's why in a game, many things are abstracted away.

Read that sidebar again and tell me its written as a game rule.

Compare it to the text of a feat or class feature.

Please. This will help you interpret it. Look at the context.

You're under the mistaken impression that I need help interpreting it.

However, it's a rule. It's tied to mechanics. And it's tied to certain class and racial features. It's certainly not just whimsical flavor text.

Why? How can the Rogue player argue with you about what the creature (run by you) notices? He cant argue with the other players about what they're noticing.

It's your monster. You rule what it does and doesn't notice. By default its assumed to notice the Rogue as soon as he breaks hiding, and will forever more (unless the Rogue can get to a place where the Monster no longer knows where he is). Simply by allowing the Rogue to occasionally try again with disadvantage despite being under observation by a monster is allowing the Rogue to do something he normally couldn't do.

Because ultimately we're playing a game, we're not playing cops and robbers. By this same logic the DM can just say "Well, sorry Jim, the monster was watching you cast fireball and gets advantage on his dexterity save. Too bad buddy". Uhh no thank you.

Then suddenly you're not really playing D&D any more, your playing Dave the DM's story time - jump on and enjoy the ride!

I don't want to play that kind of game, neither does anyone at my table. But if that's how you want to play, more power to you.

I certainly wouldnt let a player crap on to me about it for an hour afterwards, or argue with me (or whoever was DMing) at the table. That's just poor sportsmanship.

You are a player too, just first among equals. I think many DM's who love the old "rulings not rules" philosophy forget that. The player legitimately felt that this was a class feature that was being unfairly nerfed, it's not about "letting" anything. We are all adults and most of us are DM's ourselves, and his point of view was perfectly valid and arguable within the rules.

You also haven't read my posts very well, so go back and read them, because you're making a lot of mistakes in your arguments that you're repeating over and over:

1. I'm not the DM in this situation.
2. No argument happened in game, however, it happened out of game, and did for a time result in a pissed off player.
3. All of the players arguments were perfectly valid, perfectly acceptable, and perfectly logical. The rules however are too vague, so the actual DM made a call based on balance.
I don't agree with the players interpretation on the stealth mechanics, but I definitely agree that he has a VERY valid case, and that the rules are NOT black and white like some people here like to pretend.

If the rules were simple and elegant like you and others make them out to be, there wouldn't be a thousand threads arguing about it, the argument wouldn't have happened at my table, and we wouldn't be in this argument at all.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

 

[CapnZapp]

Substitute lightfoot halfling and wood elf hide abilities with proficiency in stealth skill

No, that's not a good substitute.

 

[CapnZapp]

Warlocks are also very vulnerable to counterbattery fire, and they're not as good at shooting targets under hard cover (because fighters get Sharpshooter for "free" with their extra feat(s), whereas warlocks have trouble affording Spell Sniper).

It's ironic that "Sharpshooter -5/+10 needs nerfing" and "fighters need buffing" both occur in this thread. Fighters are strong precisely because of Sharpshooter (and to a lesser extent GWM). It's how they exploit their extra attacks-per-round in a way that no one else can quite match except Sorlocks (and fighters are better at sustaining that damage output consistently).

In my experience GWF makes our totem barbarian probably too good.

Reckless neatly neutralizes the to hit penalty of GWF, while bear resistance neatly mitigates the drawbacks of reckless.

End result is a damage output NOTHING else comes even close to (and we have a laser cleric, paladin and bard to compare to)

Give GWF to a monster and you see a massive difference.

I'm not yet saying GWF is unconditionally too good, but it's at the top of my problem list.

 

[Celtavian]

That's all well and dandy but the designers have said they will errata rules that cause arguments at the table. Stealth has caused arguments at our table. Our Rogue player firmly believes that the intention of the class is to be able to hide and gain advantage every round. Most of the rest of us disagree, but it caused an argument.

Naturally the DM won, but rightly or wrongly the player felt pissed off and gimped. By RAW the player is even right.

While you can't actually have stealth rules that are elegant and cover all scenarios, the 5e rules definitely need to be cleaned up, or made very clear to players that its the DM call on how they work from the get-go.

Stealth has caused so many arguments and problems over the years that if I had a nickel for all the stealth threads I've seen for the last ten plus years, I'd be have at least a few thousands dollars. They tried to rewrite Stealth in Pathfinder. It did not work. Still caused confusion. Still had many corner cases where the DM is supposed to decide.

I believe your player is right. The Cunning action Hide rule was made to give the Rogue the ability to Hide every round and gain advantage on at least one attack. Sneak Attack was built with that in mind occurring only once per turn. They made it extremely easy for the rogue to use his Sneak Attack every round. I think they made it extremely easy for the Rogue to gain advantage on that single Sneak Attack every round on purpose. The rules are quite clear that for one attack every round the rogue is set up to gain advantage on that attack and gain a sneak attack. They made sure that a multi-attacker could not. This is all intentional.

They also incorporated a discussion of sensible rules for cover. This makes the rogue have to work at least a little bit at it. The example I used with the Halfing is he can't keep hiding behind the same person over and over again. The DM can easily rule that the opponent can watch that location quite easily, so the Halfling doesn't get to play hide and seek behind fighter in the same place the entire combat. If the Halfing is moving behind other party members during the fight, I have no problem with him getting advantage nearly every round. The game is built for him to do that.

Think about the way they wrote the rules including the rogue:

pg. 176 PHB Hiding

1. Stealth requires cover. Something to hide behind. Sensible. So you can't use Hide in melee, you have to use it with a ranged weapon or have the person come past your cover area. Soon as you break cover, the DM can rule that you are spotted, especially if you're hiding in the same area turn after turn. This requires the rogue to stay moving around the combat. The DM can also rule that if you stay out of the sight line of a target, you can sneak up on them such as during a sentry removal attack when the sentries are looking the other way.

2. Some options allow you to hide in Lightly obscured areas or behind other characters. Lightly obscured doesn't change that you must not be seen. Lightly Obscured only provides disadvantage on perception checks, it does not remove if they see you, you are not hidden rule. It's for those times when the DM can rule that there are sufficient light cover of bushes, mist, or forest shadows for you to hide without being directly perceived. It's another one of those situations the DM must rule on when it comes to environmental circumstances.

pg. 195 PHB

3. If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

Target now knows your location. Unless you're invisible, if you pop out of cover again or continue to be out of cover he knows where you are. No advantage on attack rolls. This happens with the very first attack.

I read the rules and I let the rogue get his one advantage attack a round with fairly minimal work. I don't allow him to be lazy and hide in one place over and over again or hide behind the same person over and over again. I don't allow him to pop out in melee and get the Hide advantage. The guy he's attacking is looking out for him and he won't be able to close the distance without being seen because of how paranoid the target he is attacking is.

If he's using ranged attacks and doing work to move around the battlefield hiding behind enemy and friend (in the case of a Halfling ) in big battles or hiding in different areas that I can reasonably believe the target might not be aware of, I let him hide every round. I think that was the intent of the rules. It's all quite clear. I think DMs and players make it unclear by making assumptions on their personal feelings rather than reading the rules text.

If the DM and some players doing in saying "The rogue shouldn't be able to hide and gain advantage every round", they would be incorrect. The rogue very much was built to get Advantage from hiding every round if the environment permits. The entire reason I posted a while back saying if you are fighting a rogue in the forest find a rock and make your tombstone is because I believe they are built to be able to Hide Kite someone in an area where they can find near constant cover. You have nearly no chance of seeing them due to Expertise. When I read the rogue, it seemed very clear they were able to Hide nearly every round and gain advantage and Sneak Attack other than in direct melee.

 

[DaveDash]

Stealth has caused so many arguments and problems over the years that if I had a nickel for all the stealth threads I've seen for the last ten plus years, I'd be have at least a few thousands dollars. They tried to rewrite Stealth in Pathfinder. It did not work. Still caused confusion. Still had many corner cases where the DM is supposed to decide.

I believe your player is right. The Cunning action Hide rule was made to give the Rogue the ability to Hide every round and gain advantage on at least one attack. Sneak Attack was built with that in mind occurring only once per turn. They made it extremely easy for the rogue to use his Sneak Attack every round. I think they made it extremely easy for the Rogue to gain advantage on that single Sneak Attack every round on purpose. The rules are quite clear that for one attack every round the rogue is set up to gain advantage on that attack and gain a sneak attack. They made sure that a multi-attacker could not. This is all intentional.

They also incorporated a discussion of sensible rules for cover. This makes the rogue have to work at least a little bit at it. The example I used with the Halfing is he can't keep hiding behind the same person over and over again. The DM can easily rule that the opponent can watch that location quite easily, so the Halfling doesn't get to play hide and seek behind fighter in the same place the entire combat. If the Halfing is moving behind other party members during the fight, I have no problem with him getting advantage nearly every round. The game is built for him to do that.

Think about the way they wrote the rules including the rogue:

pg. 176 PHB Hiding

1. Stealth requires cover. Something to hide behind. Sensible. So you can't use Hide in melee, you have to use it with a ranged weapon or have the person come past your cover area. Soon as you break cover, the DM can rule that you are spotted, especially if you're hiding in the same area turn after turn. This requires the rogue to stay moving around the combat. The DM can also rule that if you stay out of the sight line of a target, you can sneak up on them such as during a sentry removal attack when the sentries are looking the other way.

2. Some options allow you to hide in Lightly obscured areas or behind other characters. Lightly obscured doesn't change that you must not be seen. Lightly Obscured only provides disadvantage on perception checks, it does not remove if they see you, you are not hidden rule. It's for those times when the DM can rule that there are sufficient light cover of bushes, mist, or forest shadows for you to hide without being directly perceived. It's another one of those situations the DM must rule on when it comes to environmental circumstances.

pg. 195 PHB

3. If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

Target now knows your location. Unless you're invisible, if you pop out of cover again or continue to be out of cover he knows where you are. No advantage on attack rolls. This happens with the very first attack.

I read the rules and I let the rogue get his one advantage attack a round with fairly minimal work. I don't allow him to be lazy and hide in one place over and over again or hide behind the same person over and over again. I don't allow him to pop out in melee and get the Hide advantage. The guy he's attacking is looking out for him and he won't be able to close the distance without being seen because of how paranoid the target he is attacking is.

If he's using ranged attacks and doing work to move around the battlefield hiding behind enemy and friend (in the case of a Halfling ) in big battles or hiding in different areas that I can reasonably believe the target might not be aware of, I let him hide every round. I think that was the intent of the rules. It's all quite clear. I think DMs and players make it unclear by making assumptions on their personal feelings rather than reading the rules text.

If the DM and some players doing in saying "The rogue shouldn't be able to hide and gain advantage every round", they would be incorrect. The rogue very much was built to get Advantage from hiding every round if the environment permits.

You're not ruling by RAW. You're house ruling

By RAW a Rogue can't actually ever actually attack with advantage, because as soon as Line of zsight has been established, he's "seen" and no longer stealthed.

I'm happy with you're rulings I rule the same way, but I don't pretend I am ruling by the rules. I'm house ruling based on what makes sense to me.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ruling things like where monsters are looking is just asking for the game to grind down to a halt.

Huh? I wholly disagree. Its no different to setting DC's for checks, allowing some checks and denying others, awarding advantage or disadvantage, or anything else to do with the environment.

Anyways it misses the point. Tell the Rogue player that the default setting is:

• Once you attack from hiding, and your attack is resolved, you give your position away (hit or miss, barring taking the Skulker feat) and thus are automatically perceived. (RAW)
• Observation includes both seeing and hearing (and by extension noticing you with any other senses that could reasonably notice you). Hiding includes not being seen or heard. (RAW)
• Then tell him that you cant attempt to hide while you are under even casual observation, and when you say 'hiding' you don't mean 'take the Hide action', you mean 'hiding'. Point to the sidebar and show him that the hiding sidebar as written doesnt mention the Hide action, it mentions 'hiding' (RAW)
• Explain to him that this represents the obvious situation that you arent hidden from someone who knows where you are.
• Explain to him that in some corner cases you may allow such a thing (should he find himself in a trench or in long grass, where it is possible for him to duck down into total cover or concealment and move sufficiently far enough after ducking down that the enemy cant know where he is, or if the enemy is sufficiently distracted, or if he doubles back around and strikes from a different location, or if he can teleport or go invisible behind the cover etc etc
• Finally, if he still has an issue and wants to refer you to an online forum to argue the point further, point out that those guys arent DMing the game, and while you respect his opinion, this is how hiding works in this game.
• As a last resort if he's still pissed off, after all that, pour him a glass of concrete and get him to drink it so he can harden the hell up.

However, it's a rule. It's tied to mechanics. And it's tied to certain class and racial features. It's certainly not just whimsical flavor text.

Again, I wholly disagree.

Because ultimately we're playing a game, we're not playing cops and robbers. By this same logic the DM can just say "Well, sorry Jim, the monster was watching you cast fireball and gets advantage on his dexterity save. Too bad buddy". Uhh no thank you.

Where are you drawing that inference from? I've told you where I get my inference from. Both from my understanding of what 'hidden' means, and what it represents from a mechanical position (the enemy doesn't know where you are, you gain advantage on attack rolls as a result, and you cant be targeted with spells or attacks), and the fact the sidebar you refer to in question is not written as a rule (it doesn't refer to the Hide action expressly or implicitly)

And for what it's worth re your fireball example, I would happily allow advantage on a dexterity save against a fireball if the situation (not the rule) called for one. Thats why we have a person running the game and not a computer.

I'd probably also call for a ranged spell attack roll if my player was trying to lob a fireball through an arrow slit at maximum range in the heat of battle too, to see if it impacted against the wall rather than just have it automatically fly through.

That probably irks you, but meh. That's how I run my games. Rulings, not rules.

You are a player too, just first among equals. I think many DM's who love the old "rulings not rules" philosophy forget that. The player legitimately felt that this was a class feature that was being unfairly nerfed, it's not about "letting" anything. We are all adults and most of us are DM's ourselves, and his point of view was perfectly valid and arguable within the rules.

The player and DM should talk about it then. Explain to him that 'advantage at will' is not balanced as a 2nd level ability, and furthermore that 'hidden' in your games means 'don't know where you are' and not 'cant be seen'. Explain this isnt WOW and 'steath' isnt an invisibility button that removes object permanence from creatures noticing you duck into cover. Try and come up with a workable solution (even letting the player retcon his character or whatever).

1. I'm not the DM in this situation.
2. No argument happened in game, however, it happened out of game, and did for a time result in a pissed off player.
3. All of the players arguments were perfectly valid, perfectly acceptable, and perfectly logical. The rules however are too vague, so the actual DM made a call based on balance.
I don't agree with the players interpretation on the stealth mechanics, but I definitely agree that he has a VERY valid case, and that the rules are NOT black and white like some people here like to pretend.

Why on earth was he pissed off? The referee made a ruling. Sounds like he took it personally. Sorry, I know he's a friend, but he just sounds like a whinger.

What was his 'logical explanation' for hiding while being observed, aside from trying to tell the DM that the creature in question the DM was running chose to forget about him or stop keeping tabs on him after he shot him in the neck?

Thats a question entirely up to the DM.

 

[Flamestrike]

You're not ruling by RAW. You're house ruling

By RAW a Rogue can't actually ever actually attack with advantage, because as soon as Line of zsight has been established, he's "seen" and no longer stealthed.

Sigh. Read it again. PHB RAW:

Unseen Attackers and Targets

Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.

When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

When you attack from hiding, you don't reveal your position till after the attack is resolved.

If you miss (and have the Skulker feat) you dont even reveal yourself then. You can keep making attacks from hiding till you eventually hit someone.

 

[Celtavian]

You're not ruling by RAW. You're house ruling

By RAW a Rogue can't actually ever actually attack with advantage, because as soon as Line of zsight has been established, he's "seen" and no longer stealthed.

I'm happy with you're rulings I rule the same way, but I don't pretend I am ruling by the rules. I'm house ruling based on what makes sense to me.

I don't believe it is a house rule. I discerned all of the above from reading the text including what some consider the "fluff" text. The entire way the Stealth rules are written indicate that the DM will have to take time to rule on many matters concerning Stealth including when a target can see the player. I think that is how it should be. I don't automatically assume because a target breaks cover they are seen. I don't feel the game designers should have to spell this kind of stuff out. I feel requiring that they do so is absurd. It's like some people think the designers have to write "For that split second you pop out of cover to attack, you are considered unseen" or something like that when it is clear that is how it works for anyone that has seen or played Hide and Seek or seen stealth in films.

Overly legalistic players need everything spelled out for them or they call it a "house rule." I have never read the rules in that fashion and never will. To me the Stealth rules are extremely clear both intent and RAW. I don't find they cause arguments save from folks that seem to have this need to have everything spelled out for them. I think if they rewrote them, it would further confuse people and the same arguments would still occur from the same people, just like Pathfinder. Stealth is too variable. DMs have to rule on it either by taking the time to think about it before they play or hashing out problems when they come up. If it is during a game, make a ruling and then discuss it further during downtime.

And please don't pretend that because you think RAW says what you think it says that "I'm pretending." Guys that think if you're not following their interpretation of RAW, you're using a house rule are full of crap. You don't tell me that when you break cover, you're automatically seen and don't gain advantage is "the rules." That's your need to have this "for that split second you pop out of cover to attack, you are considered unseen" spelled out for you. I don't need these types of rulings spelled out for me. To me it is like the designers having to write "Your character must breath every round to stay alive". It's so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out. And that is where we differ as to our opinions on the stealth rules.

I don't think they need to changed in any way. They are clear as written. I doubt any attempt to rewrite them will change that the DM will have to rule on Stealth more often any other ability in the game. A DM ruling on Stealth is not a house rule, but a ruling based on his interpretation of the rules in a given situation...DM rulings based on the rules in a given situation not a house rule. I have sufficient rules to make rulings on stealth, that is all I expect from my game rules. We'll find out over time if your opinion is a vocal minority or a majority.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think they need to changed in any way. They are clear as written.

If you truly belive that, you are delusional. The number of threads on stealth makes it perfectly obvious to me the rules are anything but clear.