D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[Charlaquin]

I would like to add the caveat, only so far as the players tolerate their DM's interpretation of the rules. It doesn't seem like that's much of an issue if she's been a DM for as long as she has - she's definitely had a pool of players to draw from willing to engage. But DMs who routinely have mismatches between their take on the rule and their players may run short of players, in which case it being their game, their rules is a hollow solace for the lonely DM.

Sure. Obviously if a DM’s rulings are so consistently anti-player that they can’t retain players then they won’t have a game left to rule on. But, being unable to hide in most combat circumstances isn’t a particularly onerous ruling - it’s common enough that WotC had to add the Aim maneuver in Tasha’s so ranged rogues could have the damage output they’re supposed to, and on a personal level, such a ruling would be enough to keep me from playing a rogue in someone’s game, but not enough to keep me from playing in their game at all. YMMV.

Ultimately, I'm not at all impressed by her arguments - at least as reported here.

Nor am I, but the impressiveness of her arguments isn’t really relevant here. The rules explicitly say the DM decides when it’s possible to hide. She shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that.

“I don’t agree with your ruling, but I’ll defend to the death your right to make it.”

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. Obviously if a DM’s rulings are so consistently anti-player that they can’t retain players then they won’t have a game left to rule on. But, being unable to hide in most combat circumstances isn’t a particularly onerous ruling - it’s common enough that WotC had to add the Aim maneuver in Tasha’s so ranged rogues could have the damage output they’re supposed to, and on a personal level, such a ruling would be enough to keep me from playing a rogue in someone’s game, but not enough to keep me from playing in their game at all. YMMV.

Nor am I, but the impressiveness of her arguments isn’t really relevant here. The rules explicitly say the DM decides when it’s possible to hide. She shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that.

“I don’t agree with your ruling, but I’ll defend to the death your right to make it.”

If you were in my game I would say it depends and let you use steady aim.

There's other ways in come to fix things as well. Rogue falling to far behind in damage? Flametongue short sword turns up or whatever.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you were in my game I would say it depends and let you use steady aim.

There's other ways in come to fix things as well. Rogue falling to far behind in damage? Flametongue short sword turns up or whatever.

I mean, it’s not just about damage output. That’s certainly important, but if a DM is that reticent to allow stealth in combat, I think they’re likely to also rule on it in a way I would find unsatisfying out combat. If I’m going to be playing a rogue, I want to know that I’ll be able to do roguish things reliably, and it doesn’t inspire confidence in me that I will be able to do so when a DM rules that it isn’t possible to hide under circumstances that a racial ability specifically allows you to hide under. Again though, it wouldn’t be enough to make me not want to play with someone at all. I would just play a character who didn’t use stealth. Probably a heavily armored character, since the drawback of disadvantage on stealth would be less significant with a DM who rules very strictly on stealth anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, it’s not just about damage output. That’s certainly important, but if a DM is that reticent to allow stealth in combat, I think they’re likely to also rule on it in a way I would find unsatisfying out combat. If I’m going to be playing a rogue, I want to know that I’ll be able to do roguish things reliably, and it doesn’t inspire confidence in me that I will be able to do so when a DM rules that it isn’t possible to hide under circumstances that a racial ability specifically allows you to hide under. Again though, it wouldn’t be enough to make me not want to play with someone at all. I would just play a character who didn’t use stealth. Probably a heavily armored character, since the drawback of disadvantage on stealth would be less significant with a DM who rules very strictly on stealth anyway.

That's only one aspect. I've had entire parties stealth there way through a dungeon.

I'm not really concerned if rogues sneak attack every round or not. Hell they could just turn sneak attack into the assassin crot ability and rename sneak attack to whatever and have it always on.

I don't think the halfling ability will make it to 6E anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's only one aspect. I've had entire parties stealth there way through a dungeon.

Maybe we would agree about stealth in all other situations, maybe we wouldn’t. Fact of the matter is, the way you say you rule it in combat would make me not want to play a rogue at your table. That’s fine, there are plenty of other classes to choose from.

I'm not really concerned if rogues sneak attack every round or not. Hell they could just turn sneak attack into the assassin crot ability and rename sneak attack to whatever and have it always on.

Ok.

I don't think the halfling ability will make it to 6E anyway.

I don’t see how that’s relevant since we’re taking about 5e.

 

[Nefermandias]

Does anyone else feel like the DM in question expects players to learn, through experience, how to play rogues "properly" - from a narrative perspective - instead of through learning the game mechanics? Or is it just me?

They way to learn how to play rogues "properly" is by reading the PHB.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure. Obviously if a DM’s rulings are so consistently anti-player that they can’t retain players then they won’t have a game left to rule on. But, being unable to hide in most combat circumstances isn’t a particularly onerous ruling - it’s common enough that WotC had to add the Aim maneuver in Tasha’s so ranged rogues could have the damage output they’re supposed to, and on a personal level, such a ruling would be enough to keep me from playing a rogue in someone’s game, but not enough to keep me from playing in their game at all. YMMV.

Nor am I, but the impressiveness of her arguments isn’t really relevant here. The rules explicitly say the DM decides when it’s possible to hide. She shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that.

“I don’t agree with your ruling, but I’ll defend to the death your right to make it.”

I disagree with your last. The GM may have that authority within the game, but they are not also the dictator of the social contract. They are accountable to the social contract in ways that their game role does not trump.

I really hope that the hobby moves past this thinking that GM is a social privilege rather than just a game role.

 

[Nefermandias]

I disagree with your last. The GM may have that authority within the game, but they are not also the dictator of the social contract. They are accountable to the social contract in ways that their game role does not trump.

I really hope that the hobby moves past this thinking that GM is a social privilege rather than just a game role.

In no way @Charlaquin has implied the DM's authority should go beyond the scope of the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree with your last. The GM may have that authority within the game, but they are not also the dictator of the social contract. They are accountable to the social contract in ways that their game role does not trump.

I really hope that the hobby moves past this thinking that GM is a social privilege rather than just a game role.

It's a role sure but they get to decide who plays and the good ones have waiting lists or charge to play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In no way @Charlaquin has implied the DM's authority should go beyond the scope of the game.

I disagree. The statement that, "he shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that," clearly indicates that game authority means there's no accountability at the social contract level. Honestly, statements like this are so well ingrained in the D&D legacy that it's hard to notice them if you aren't looking for them.

A GM has in game authority to make a ruling, yes, but this does not insulate her from having to explain it in the social contract. The GM in question severely abuses this, starting with, 'it's my game, not yours, so shut up,' and ending with emotional blackmail. At no point does the role of GM allow either to be acceptable.

EDIT: no idea where the strikethrough came from, but it's fixed now.