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

[Lyxen]

The approach to dice rolling the DMG describes as “roll with it” is not what @Ovinomancer is advocating here, and claiming it is is part of what’s making you come across as extremely judgmental.

I'm sorry, but you are not reading his posts. He even quoted the drawback of my approach (which is the opposite one, "ignoring the dice"): "A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like."

The way I understand it, he just rolls normally and has stopped bothering about circumstances, getting some a posterior explanation. Which is fine but is exactly what "rolling with it" does, with the positive and negative sides.

On the other hand, I'm almost completely on the other side of the spectrum, where "the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so."

So I will listen to the declarations of all sides and will take everything into account, maybe rolling the dice, maybe not, but if there is a roll, it will be heavily influenced by the decisions taken. It also has positive and negative sides.

No judgement there, but the consequences of which are fairly well detailed by the devs, that's all.

 

[Lyxen]

In other words, you didn't successfully take the Hide action in the first place. This isn't a case where you've lost the benefits of hiding--it's a case where you never had them to begin with.

As you've seen, I don't like black and white. You might have them while you stay behind the pillar, completely out of sight, but lose them instantly if you peek out. Again, depending on actions, these have consequences. Maybe, knowing that he might be seen, the rogue will stay in hiding, the fighter will be distracted and move away, and the rogue will target somebody else, with advantage this time because that new target will have no idea the rogue is there. It's all open.

And so that you know, at our tables, stealth checks are rolled blind, only the DM knows the result of the roll anyway, this avoids tons of metagaming (this works both face to face and using a VTT).

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I qualify it as being different, and not to my taste. You are the only one applying values and being judgemental here.

Dude, you said it wasn't even roleplaying or storytelling. Let's not pretend you aren't very much applying a judgement here. I find your argument to support your preference to be lacking. If it's just a preference, I have zero issues with it. Again, it's how it's argued that I'm engaging.

This makes no sense to me, maybe you can explain further.



I'm not forcing anything on the rogue, I'm just creating a universe where actions have consequences and where the declaration of players have some impact on the game, rather than a game where you just roll dices.

But again, both of these approaches are supported by the game. It's not a question of judgement, it's just that I prefer a game that corresponds to "This approach rewards creativity" rather than a game that is along the lines of "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

This is straight from the DMG, by the way.

You missed the bit after those two, labeled, conveniently, "The Middle Path," which doesn't list drawbacks. The assumption you've made, incorrectly, is that I follow the path of "Roll With It." I do not.

I am running a game in which story matters, as well as players decision, rather than just letting dices decide, that's all.

Again, you assume I am not doing these things. Actually, I prefer to not do "the story matters" that much, instead trying to let the players determine their own story rather than play to learn mine.

Our games have always felt natural whatever the edition, except with 4e especially at high level.



Very strange sentences here. Was it more restrictive or not ? How can it be more honest about being restrictive if it was not ? Your sentences do not make any sense.

It's a common enough phrasing that means it wasn't more restrictive than 3e. It was just more honest about how it restricted things than 3e was.

Not that much. For example, look at Critical Role, they went from PF to 5e and continued the same campaign, no worries, the tone of the campaign and the stories have not changed at all. QED.

Don't know about Critical Role, except that it's an entertainment product by professional actors with a profit motive. That it didn't change it's winning formula says that they've intentionally shaped their presentation to do this, and not anything at all about the games. If you have a game in PF, and you move it to 5e, and it doesn't change, I am, uncharacteristically, willing to say that you might be doing it wrong. Or, rather, that it appears that you have a game and haven't changed it, despite claiming to be playing 5e or Pathfinder.

Well, of course, if they can move, it would be stupid not to do so, but the assumption has always been that they were in a fight and probably pinned down. But the two are not exclusive.

In a fight. Pinned down. Uh-huh, tell me more about how there's no demands on this creature's attention such that they have plenty free to focus on the pillar?

Fortunately, the tastes in our group run in the same direction, so good ideas are not wasted, in particular because we don't feel constrained by rules when they get in the way of good ideas. |But this is almost another matter in itself.



Yes, because it's a silly idea, never seen in movies or books because no one would be dumb to do it or fall for it twice in a row.

It's of course up to you if you allow your players to do silly things in your game, but despite all your talk, all I hear is "the rules say so, so my rogue is entitled to it whatever the circumstances".



My judgement on this is that it's extremely harsh on a character. From my perspective, it looks like you absolutely want to favour the unimaginative rogue that mechanistically just wants his sneak attack with advantage every round, without any regards for the circumstances. Why you would like to do this, I have no idea, but you can do whatever you like in your campaign.

But I hope that you realise that, by doing this, you are completely blocking the imagination of the fighter and railroading his actions much more than with my approach.

Sure, go ahead and call my player unimaginative, when they come up, every round, with new and fun stories about how they attacked this time.

See above.



Your view of swordplay is very basic, as is your understanding of what is happening in a round. You do realise that the actions are not sequenced, and that each "attack" is not a single sword thrust ?

This is serious? I mean, really? You explain to me that swordplay is complex, and so you can't just give disadvantage because the fighter is doing different things, while at the same time saying that the rogue, who is even more skilled at stealth than the fighter (assuming expertise) is a very simple affair where the same thing is being done over and over without variation on ability to be varied. And this is a serious argument.

I mean, I've said you have a clear and preconceived idea about the fiction for the rogue. And I said that I anticipated a 'that's different' argument for the swordplay. You've more than delivered on your end.

I admit that I've only seen one Riddick movie, but I've not seen anything this dumb even there. As for Avengers, no, I've not seen something that silly in there either.



No, you are the one saying that "one size fits all" and not bothering about circumstances at all. I'm very flexible, and will adapt my resolution to any declaration made by the players or imagined by the DM. And it will be different each time if the situation warrants it, because I believe that it's more fun that way than just rolling dices all evening to rack up sneak attack damage and saying it's awesome....

I am not. I'm saying that your reasoning for your preference is shaky and not logical -- that a simple change to allow the rogue as much leeway in explaining her hiding as you give to the fighter without hesitation will result in a different outcome. Your argument is pinned up in a preconceived notion of how the fiction works, and you will not consider other options, so you have a faulty premise for your rules argument. A non-faulty premise is "we like it like this." You do you, there are no gamer police. But, if you show up with bad arguments, expect the air to be let out from time to time.

The DM does not tell how it works, he just explain how the WORLD works, then the story is told by players, not by just rolling dice every round the same way just because the mechanics support it, that's all.



I'm not the one saying it, the Dev say it, my friend: "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

Deal with it.

I don't play "Roll With It," so nothing to deal with.

If that's what you are looking for, great, but I'm pretty sure that never happens. I've seen many of games of that kind, and it's always rolling the dices to get as much damage as possible, never seen the slightest hint of roleplay about it. And then, you might be the exception, who knows, and if that's the case and you enjoy it, it's fine, happy gaming.

I'm terribly sorry, but your experience isn't the breadth of everything, and your characterization of my game is woefully incorrect. See, I'm not making assumptions about anything other than the topic at hand, but you seem to feel the need to decide how I play in general, and then tell me it's boring, not fun, no roleplaying, terriblebad. I'm not an exception, there's plenty of us that have rich games that don't feel the need to make the call you did. I find your approach to be the result of the GM deciding the reality and then forcing the rules to match, rather than using the rules as a tool to encourage fun stories. I'll put my games up against yours any day of the week for a comparison of how much roleplaying is happening.

Indeed it is because, you know, swordplay and shooting an arrow have very little in common. It's a varied game for a varied world, and seeing things your way is just one more proof that all what matters to you is rolling a d20 and rolling damage.

Okay. I mean, you're terribly wrong, and leveling the judgements that you disclaimed in your first sentence, all without a shred of evidence to support it, but you do you, man. You do you.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm sorry, but you are not reading his posts. He even quoted the drawback of my approach (which is the opposite one, "ignoring the dice"):
"A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like."

No, I read that, but you are incorrectly assuming that they’re advocating for roll with it as the alternative. I know Ovinomancer’s approach as I use the same approach, and it is better described as what the DMG calls “the middle path.”

The way I understand it, he just rolls normally and has stopped bothering about circumstances, getting some a posterior explanation. Which is fine but is exactly what "rolling with it" does, with the positive and negative sides.

He applies the rules as they are written and insures the narrative suits the mechanics, rather than having a preset narrative already in mind and changing the mechanics to produce results that suit that narrative.

On the other hand, I'm almost completely on the other side of the spectrum, where "the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so."

This has next to nothing to do with stealth in combat…

So I will listen to the declarations of all sides and will take everything into account, maybe rolling the dice, maybe not, but if there is a roll, it will be heavily influenced by the decisions taken. It also has positive and negative sides.

No judgement there, but the consequences of which are fairly well detailed by the devs, that's all.

Sorry, but what you’re saying is coming across as very judgmental. If that’s not your intent, you may want to consider that you are not expressing your actual position clearly.

 

[CleverNickName]

Fair enough. Though, it seems to me like this ruling makes the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy feature useless.

I don't think the intent of that ability was to allow the Halfling to become (and stay) functionally invisible in combat. I feel it was intended allow them to nimbly duck around a corner and hide quickly from pursuers, thus avoiding combat. That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think the intent of that ability was to allow the Halfling to become (and stay) functionally invisible in combat.

I don’t see how hiding behind an ally to gain advantage on an attack (which would then cause you to cease being hidden when it hits or misses) each turn constitutes “becoming and staying invisible in combat.” If you try to use it after attacking, your target can easily just step around your ally, at which point they will be able to see you clearly and you will no longer be hidden. Being able to attack with advantage seems to me to be the only possible use of naturally stealthy.

I feel it was intended allow them to nimbly duck around a corner and hide quickly from pursuers, thus avoiding combat. That's my take on it, anyway.

Duck around a corner? Naturally Stealthy has nothing to do with corners, it only allows you to hide when covered only be a Medium or larger creature. And if you tried to use that to allow you to escape combat… well, you would be seen as soon as you move out from behind your ally, so that doesn’t seem possible to me.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don’t see how hiding behind an ally to gain advantage on an attack (which would then cause you to cease being hidden when it hits or misses) each turn constitutes “becoming and staying invisible in combat.” If you try to use it after attacking, your target can easily just step around your ally, at which point they will be able to see you clearly and you will no longer be hidden. Being able to attack with advantage seems to me to be the only possible use of naturally stealthy.

Duck around a corner? Naturally Stealthy has nothing to do with corners, it only allows you to hide when covered only be a Medium or larger creature. And if you tried to use that to allow you to escape combat… well, you would be seen as soon as you move out from behind your ally, so that doesn’t seem possible to me.

Functionally invisible. As in "the rogue always get advantage on attacks, and his opponents always get disadvantage." And my phrase "duck around a corner and hide quickly" should be roughly translated as "move 30 feet and then use a Bonus action to Hide" in the language of game mechanics.

Anyway, that's all beside the point.

All I'm trying to say is, I don't think the game designers intended for the rogue to always have Advantage on their attacks (and therefore always have Sneak Attack damage every round). If they had, they would have worded the Sneak Attack ability differently...they would have only needed two sentences:

Sneak Attack: Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with a finesse or a ranged weapon. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.​

But that's just my opinion, and everyone should run it the way that makes sense to them. Honestly? That revised Sneak Attack rule I just cobbled together is a great house-rule for folks that want/need rogues to use their Sneak Attack ability every round. It's elegant, easy to understand, doesn't need a battle mat, and avoids arguments.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Functionally invisible. As in "the rogue always get advantage on attacks, and his opponents always get disadvantage." And my phrase "duck around a corner and hide quickly" should be roughly translated as "move 30 feet and then use a Bonus action to Hide" in the language of game mechanics.

No, the hiding PC gets advantage on 1 attack. If you have two in a round, it only applies to the first, because making the attack automatically reveals you, so you can't get it on a followup. Also, the PC has to move to an appropriate place, spend some action economy, and make a check. Now, I'll grant that, at a fairly early point, the result of that check for a rogue is pretty one-sided, but that's what rogues are meant to do. And, honestly, the opponents don't get disadvantage, unless they can guess a square, which is contraindicated if the PC is hiding behind full cover due to line of effect.

The difference really is that the hiding PC is extremely vulnerable to maneuver -- move to remove the cover/concealment and the rogue is not hiding from you anymore. It's not really at all like functional invisibility, it just shares a few traits.

Anyway, that's all beside the point.

All I'm trying to say is, I don't think the game designers intended for the rogue to always have Advantage on their attacks (and therefore always have Sneak Attack damage every round). If they had, they would have worded the Sneak Attack ability differently...they would have only needed two sentences:

Sneak Attack: Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with a finesse or a ranged weapon. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.​

But that's just my opinion, and everyone should run it the way that makes sense to them. Honestly? That revised Sneak Attack rule I just cobbled together is a great house-rule for folks that want/need rogues to use their Sneak Attack ability every round. It's elegant, easy to understand, doesn't need a battle mat, and avoids arguments.

The argument is that if the rogue has advantage on every attack, they do not break anything. They almost catch up to champion fighters. It's not that they deserve to get advantage, it's that getting it isn't something that makes rogues break the game. If you just gave it to them outright, every round, it still wouldn't break the game. So, we have a regime where the upper end of getting advantage is "always" and we have a low end of never getting advantage being a pretty big suck. In between, we have rules that say you can hide in combat, and rules that say what that means, and rules that some PCs have a much easier time finding places to hide. So, in regards to those PCs, and considering the rules, there's nothing that breaks the game if they get lots of advantage - if anything, getting it makes the rogue somewhat competitive in damage to the fighters which, honestly, is not a high bar for 5e.

 

[jayoungr]

Why are you restricting that sentence to this. It's a simple english sentence.

I'm not restricting it to just those two situations. They were examples of ridiculous stunts that the hiding rules don't give you license to try.

To keep from going round in circles any more than we already are, let me turn the question back to you: What is an example of a situation where you would rule that the rogue cannot hide because he is in plain sight?

It is perfectly in line, because you only gain it while you are hidden, which is "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding". So if oyu are discovered before you make your attack, you do not gain the benefit of that section, obviously.

Yes, but according to what you're saying, the rogue will never be able to attack while hidden, because the act of making the attack involves leaving cover. So, how can the rogue be said to gain the benefits of being an unseen attacker (which he should get, by RAW)?

Disadvantage on the stealth check because there is only one place to hide and advantage on the perception because the target knows where to look.

That sounds reasonable to me, but earlier (in post #300) you said you would run it differently and not allow the benefits of being hidden at all.

I don't think the intent of that ability was to allow the Halfling to become (and stay) functionally invisible in combat.

Why not? It costs the rogue's bonus action and requires a successful stealth check every round, and it can be negated by a change in positioning of enemies. You think that's too powerful?

If they had, they would have worded the Sneak Attack ability differently...they would have only needed two sentences:

Sneak Attack: Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with a finesse or a ranged weapon. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.​

But as it stands, rogues don't automatically get Sneak Attack damage every round. Only if they don't use their bonus action for anything else, and only if they hide successfully. Your version is noticeably more powerful. You're also conflating halfling rogues with all rogues, since your original comment was about halflings specifically.

 

[CleverNickName]

The argument is that if the rogue has advantage on every attack, they do not break anything..

I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was explaining how I do things at my table, and answering @Charlaquin's questions about it. I acknowledged that others will disagree, and suggested a house-rule that could clarify things. The way that I interpret the rogue's Cunning Action feature hasn't "broken" my game, and I don't care enough about Sneak Attack damage comparisons to be part of any "regime."