D&D 5E (2014) Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[jayoungr]

Remember, because the rogue is not in plain sight, I will allow a stealth check.

But what difference does the stealth check make, if the rogue always loses advantage before attacking?

 

[Oofta]

Who said they were? I mean, I'm being told I'm ignoring rules, but I haven't said that to anyone else.

Oh, I accept it fine. I don't accept that the argument for this ruling is obvious, or clear, or that it make better use of the rules, or that not doing it means characters are dumb, or that it's at all related in any way to trying to hide behind a towel, or any number of dismissive, insulting, or rude statements made about people that don't apply disadvantage.

It's sooo very amusing how selective you are with this argument.

Selective how? It's gotten to the point we're repeating basically the same thing just worded slightly different.

Nothing new is being added. That's all.

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh, I'd hold that by default, the attack occurs before, then you are no longer hidden. That is clear. The "you are seen after you attack" rules are not what I'm talking about.

I am talking about "the DM decides if you stay hidden". And if you telegraph where you are attacking from, then the creature either automatically sees you, or has a good chance to see you, before you attack.

And by telegraph, I mean "fool me twice" situation, where you use the exact same pattern. If you vary it a bit? Delay the pop out from being immediately twice in a row? Then the dice decide.

Maybe you just have to make another check. Maybe the check is at advantage. Maybe they get to make a check. Maybe they make a check at advantage. Maybe their passive gets a +5 bonus.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe you just have to make another check. Maybe the check is at advantage. Maybe they get to make a check. Maybe they make a check at advantage. Maybe their passive gets a +5 bonus.

Oof. So many different ways you might resolve the same action. Seems like this would make it difficult for the rogue’s player to get a sense of their likelihood of success.

 

[jayoungr]

I am talking about "the DM decides if you stay hidden". And if you telegraph where you are attacking from, then the creature either automatically sees you, or has a good chance to see you, before you attack.

And by telegraph, I mean "fool me twice" situation, where you use the exact same pattern.

So in this situation, would you even allow a stealth check, and if so, what effect would it have?

(Also, it can be argued that it takes three times to establish a pattern.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Selective how? It's gotten to the point we're repeating basically the same thing just worded slightly different.

Nothing new is being added. That's all.

Selective in who you say it to. I mean, I'm pointing out failures in argument, to which you're trotting out "no wrong way to play," which, sure, no problem, not the gaming police. I'm not talking about how you play, but your argument supporting it, which I see as flawed and say why. "Because I want to," is actually a reasonable argument here. The ones deployed -- not so much. But, @Lyxen is over there saying I'm not even roleplaying if I don't apply disadvantage to rogues hiding in the same spot on consecutive rounds, and there's not a peep from you about it.

So, yeah, selective deployment. What's more fun is that you actually "liked" the post where he did it.

 

[Oofta]

Selective in who you say it to. I mean, I'm pointing out failures in argument, to which you're trotting out "no wrong way to play," which, sure, no problem, not the gaming police. I'm not talking about how you play, but your argument supporting it, which I see as flawed and say why. "Because I want to," is actually a reasonable argument here. The ones deployed -- not so much. But, @Lyxen is over there saying I'm not even roleplaying if I don't apply disadvantage to rogues hiding in the same spot on consecutive rounds, and there's not a peep from you about it.

So, yeah, selective deployment. What's more fun is that you actually "liked" the post where he did it.

I'm perfectly consistent in what I say and I follow the rules. You insisting that there are "failures" in my argument is meaningless because you can't show me in the rules where I am incorrect. Make your case. If you point out something I missed, great.

In the meantime you tend to twist things around to mean whatever you want. I don't believe I missed anything in @Lyxen's post about you not roleplaying, although you do seem to believe that your way is the one true way of playing. That hiding is like a Queen moving on a chess board, that if there's a successful hide check they will remain hidden until after they attack.

The rules do not say that you remain hidden once you've had a successful hide check. After an attack is made you will (normally) not be hidden. In addition, "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly." The DM may decide the target doesn't notice you before you attack.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm perfectly consistent in what I say and I follow the rules. You insisting that there are "failures" in my argument is meaningless because you can't show me in the rules where I am incorrect. Make your case. If you point out something I missed, great.

Show where it says you can! Your argument is selective -- you're arguing that the GM having the ability to make rulings means you're in the rules but counter arguments are not.

And, I've said that if you just want to do this, that's fine. It's the argument that it's obvious that any creature would be extra-attentive to where the hiding PC is such that they, for free, get to apply disadvantage to the next DEX(stealth) check or that they get advantage to their next WIS(Perception) check that's flawed -- this is not anything but a very narrow look at possibilities and not at all something you have to get to via a look at the situation. That's what I'm arguing against -- the assertion that this is obvious and bettererest than other options.

In the meantime you tend to twist things around to mean whatever you want. I don't believe I missed anything in @Lyxen's post about you not roleplaying, although you do seem to believe that your way is the one true way of playing. That hiding is like a Queen moving on a chess board, that if there's a successful hide check they will remain hidden until after they attack.

He directly says that my approach leads to a "mechanistic" game and that this isn't real roleplaying or storytelling. Here's the quote, in the post you put your like on:

"Now, technically the game allows it, so if you want to play a purely technical game, have fun as much as you want, but don't pretend that it's roleplaying or storytelling at this stage."

You liked a post that 1) admits that the rules allow for this and 2) then says that it's not even roleplaying if you do it. If you want more context, feel free to go get it. Here's the link to the post: D&D 5E - Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

Also, I challenge you to quote me telling anyone my way is the only way, or even a better way. I'm very careful to put any such qualifiers as only in relation to my own gaming. My current way is better than my previous way, for me. That was an example.

I suppose it's easy to just assign me as a one-true-wayer -- makes it easier to dismiss anything I have to say. You should examine this for personal animus rather than a coherent position, though.

The rules do not say that you remain hidden once you've had a successful hide check.

Well, they do, until something changes. But, given the context, you are correct that you do not get to make a single hide check and remain hidden despite changing conditions.

After an attack is made you will (normally) not be hidden.

100% true. Never argued otherwise.

In addition, "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly." The DM may decide the target doesn't notice you before you attack.

Yup. So, then, what are you arguing against with regards to my position, because you haven't gotten to anything different, yet.

 

[jayoungr]

The DM may decide the target doesn't notice you before you attack.

I'll ask you the same question I've been asking everyone else who's said something similar: if you think it's up to the DM, how do you interpret the sentence on page 192 of the PHB that says that if you succeed on the Hide action, you gain benefits described under "Unseen Attackers and Targets"?

 

[Lyxen]

In the situation we've been talking about all along, the rogue has been succeeding on stealth checks. Or at least, that's what I've been talking about.

That's what you have been talking about, but what I've been talking about is that he might very well have failed, because the circumstances were against him. But even if he succeeded, see below.

I don't think so. Let me put it another way: they could easily have said, "If you come out of hiding, all creatures present will usually see you." Why do you think they bothered to add that bit about approaching a creature?

There are many sentences around stealth, in particular the one that says that you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly. If you pop out to attack from behind a pillar while a creature is watching that pillar, you are not hidden, even before you make your attack. Simple, clear and absolutely in line with the RAW.

Then how do you read the sentence on page 192 that says, "If you succeed [on the Hide action], you gain certain benefits, as described in the 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' section later in this chapter"? If you're going to suggest that you only get the benefits of being an unseen target, why doesn't it specify that you only get some of the benefits in that section?

Because, as with almost everything in these rules, there is no absolute answer for all situations. And even if you gain all the benefits from being hidden, you will lose them as soon as you are no longer hidden.

Being hidden does not allow you to attack through a pillar, and does not even allow you to see on the other side of the pillar either. You have to at least peek around, and pop something out to attack.

While I agree that, if the target does not know that you are there, is not watching your hiding place, and is generally involved in combat, as a DM I will of course say that the target does not see you clearly, you do not lose the fact that you are hidden and you can use the "unseen attacker benefit".

But if you have made it obvious that you have hidden there already, that you went back to the same place, and there is nowhere else to hide, and the target is watching the pillar, he will see you clearly as soon as you pop out just to see your target, but you will no longer be hidden, and will not benefit from the unseen attacker, as you have been seen, clearly.