D&D 5E (2014) Stealth

[PnPgamer]

I think you mean 'players' as characters can't roll dice.

So you say that my character cannot gamble his buttocks off in a dice game? :'<

 

[Mistwell]

Because it's like saying "my gun shot them" or "my car hit them".

It's really not, but OK, neither of those things would frustrate me much either. He's communicating his meaning, which is the purpose of language. You know what he means, even if he's not saying it as precisely as you prefer. Why is it a big enough deal for you to continue to bother to argue it?

They're inanimate objects with no ability to do anything of their own volition. So either they're literally delusional and believe that the dice are alive and making the decisions for him or they're being dishonest. Neither are positive qualities.

Or third choice, neither delusional or lying, just a colloquialism you're not appreciating? Why the heck are you jumping to "delusional or lying" conclusions over something as silly as that? It's highly personally insulting to the guy, and totally unnecessary for this topic.

Yes, it is a very specific complaint that I dislike the style of DMing the purports the DM to have no control and instead claim "it's all the dice" it's not.

And when someone comes to your house and tries to force you to play a way you don't like to play, then the vitriolic tone of your responses will make sense. But all he did is describe how he does it - he didn't even advocate for you to do it that way in any way. Right now, all it looks like to me is you're telling him he's playing D&D in a bad and wrong way, even though apparently he and his players are all having fun at it, and even though many people play it just like he does (hiding both the perception and hide rolls behind the DM screen, and rolling dice to decide the outcome).

 

[CapnZapp]

This thread has ceased to be useful

 

[Jaracove]

I'd rather not state, since this seems like it is inevitably going to lead down the road of "I'm older than you and clearly my way of playing is more correct."

WRONG (just like you typed to another poster yesterday). I stated quite clearly the reason for my question so there was no need to ask.

Let me rephrase the question: would my age make a difference in how you view my opinion?
If the answer is yes, then I'm Justified for not stating my age. If the answer is no, then it doesn't need to be stated.

Again though, your reasons for assuming why I asked your age are wrong. I stated why I asked your age and it was because I was rather taken aback by how vociferous you came across regarding how we play the game at our table. Besides (and I admit to assuming myself here), your reluctance to tell me your age probably tells me all I need to know

I really dislike this dissociative fallacy of the "dice deciding" the dice don't decide anything.

I disagree with your opinion.

They don't up and roll for themselves. You roll them. You may allow your determination to be found via their outcome, but it is simply a mode of you making a decision. The dice are doing nothing of the sort.

There you go then.

You come across as someone who has very strong opinions over how the game should be approached, and somewhat incapable of accepting other gamers might play the game differently to you. My advice would be to chill out a bit and just accept we are all different.

 

[cloa513]

The rules shouldn't what's realistic/common-sense since the rest of the game isn't such as combat round- its a total fantasy game. Doing so slows it down.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So you say that my character cannot gamble his buttocks off in a dice game? :'<

If you are using Arduin rules then oh yes, you certainly can!

It's all fun and games until someone loses a buttock!!!

 

[TDarien]

You can't hide behind an object while being seen clearly moving into position behind that object. Likewise, a lightfoot halfilng cannot hide behind another creature, if she is seen clearly moving into position behind that creature.

This is absolutely not true. As I mentioned earlier, hiding isn't about creatures not knowing where you are, it's about them not being able to *detect* where you are. Yes you saw me move behind that pillar, so logically I'm still there. However, because you can't see me, I'm able to hide from you. If successful, you won't be able to tell that I'm there any longer. Note that this doesn't mean you've forgotten you saw me move there. Logically I'm still there, because there's no where else for me to go, but that's not the same thing as perceiving me. When I move again, I have to make myself visible, so I'm not hidden anymore (unless the DM rules that popping out to shoot falls under the "under certain circumstances" clause, in which case I can still get advantage on an attack, but that's 100% up to the DM).


This is important because it's plausible that I could move from that spot undetected. By teleporting or climbing, for example. In order to do those actions undetected, I'm required to hide first. Otherwise you could detect me doing them.

So if I move behind a pillar, I absolutely can hide, even if you see me go there. Granted, there may not be much benefit to me hiding, but that doesn't change the fact that I can hide. There's a difference between perceiving me in a spot and logically deducing I'm still there because you saw me go there.

EDIT: As for lightfoot halflings (and wood elves, for that matter), I find it totally plausible that can effectively just disappear from your view, even if you're watching them closely. They're tricky little suckers. "I'll get you now you little....WHERE'D HE GO?!?!?!"

 

[ehenning]

If you have a better system, feel free to write it up and post it. Please buy flame retardant clothes before doing so (for your own safety).

The current system is a lousy system from an abstract position. However it also happens to be the best system I've seen.

#churchill well said

 

[Hriston]

This is absolutely not true. As I mentioned earlier, hiding isn't about creatures not knowing where you are, it's about them not being able to *detect* where you are.

I'd say it's about both and I'm not so sure the rules support an interpretation that treats the two separately. As far as I understand, if you are detected, or noticed, then your location is known. When you are hidden your location is unknown until you are revealed in some way. You can't be hidden and have your location known at the same time.

Yes you saw me move behind that pillar, so logically I'm still there. However, because you can't see me, I'm able to hide from you. If successful, you won't be able to tell that I'm there any longer.

But my memory tells me you're still there. That isn't logic.

Note that this doesn't mean you've forgotten you saw me move there. Logically I'm still there, because there's no where else for me to go, but that's not the same thing as perceiving me.

I can't perceive your location with my memory? Remember, the ability I use for this is Wisdom.

This is important because it's plausible that I could move from that spot undetected. By teleporting or climbing, for example. In order to do those actions undetected, I'm required to hide first. Otherwise you could detect me doing them.

Now you're talking about ducking behind cover to elude the gaze of your enemies so you can move stealthily to another hiding spot. That was exactly my point about the lightfoot. Since she has nowhere to go, in a brightly lit room, other than to stay behind her medium or larger friend which her enemies just observed her stepping behind, there is really no opportunity for her to hide.

Action and movement are the two parts of your turn, but they should not be necessarily thought of as happening at two separate times. Once obscured by your medium sized friend, you can certainly move quietly through the dense foliage behind him to a new hiding place where your location will be unknown to your enemies. But if you stay behind your friend, they will perceive where you are because they clearly saw you go there.

 

[TDarien]

I'd say it's about both and I'm not so sure the rules support an interpretation that treats the two separately. As far as I understand, if you are detected, or noticed, then your location is known. When you are hidden your location is unknown until you are revealed in some way. You can't be hidden and have your location known at the same time.

There's nothing in the rules that says if your position is known you can't attempt to hide again. As long as I meet the requirements of not being able to be seen clearly (or whatever requirements halflings and wood elves have) I can attempt to hide again. At that point, you can't tell I'm still there. The fact that I have nowhere to go isn't really relevant. As I said before, there may not be much benefit to me hiding, because as soon as I move I reveal myself again, that doesn't change the fact that I was hidden.

But my memory tells me you're still there. That isn't logic.

Logic is exactly what it is. You can't perceive my location with your senses so you deduce I'm still there because that's where you saw me last.

I can't perceive your location with my memory? Remember, the ability I use for this is Wisdom.

*blink*

*blink* *blink*
This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard in my entire life. I actually laughed out loud at its lunacy. No, you can't perceive my location with your memory. It's not a sense.

Besides, memory is Intelligence, not Wisdom (PHB, pg 177 "An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.")

Now you're talking about ducking behind cover to elude the gaze of your enemies so you can move stealthily to another hiding spot. That was exactly my point about the lightfoot. Since she has nowhere to go, in a brightly lit room, other than to stay behind her medium or larger friend which her enemies just observed her stepping behind, there is really no opportunity for her to hide.

Sure there is, because the rules specifically say there is. The fact that she has nowhere to go is completely irrelevant to her ability to hide. Hiding and movement are completely separate in this edition. Hiding is an action in 5e, that's never been the case before, it's always been tied to movement. That's not the case anymore.

Action and movement are the two parts of your turn, but they should not be necessarily thought of as happening at two separate times. Once obscured by your medium sized friend, you can certainly move quietly through the dense foliage behind him to a new hiding place where your location will be unknown to your enemies. But if you stay behind your friend, they will perceive where you are because they clearly saw you go there.

There's nothing in the rules that supports this. There is one requirement to be able to attempt to hide, that your target can't see you clearly, and in the halfling's case, the very specific "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." There's nothing in the rules that supersedes that, nor is there anything that having your position known prevents you from attempting to hide. Being discovered makes you lose the benefits of being hidden, but that is, in no way, the same thing as not being allowed to hide if your position is known.