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

[Lyxen]

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.”

There are not 3 paths, there is a gradation from one extreme to another (and actually a space of differences rather than just a line). I'm close to one extreme, meaning that approaches that are closer to the middle path are still getting the same advantages and drawbacks, although to a lesser degree.

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.

First, there is no "preset narrative". This is an overreading of the "ignore the dice". What there is is a consistent world, where there is logic in what is happening, but linked to the world itself, not to rules.

Second, for me, it's much stronger to be constrained by abstract rules than by the logic of a world. Especially when (see below), you constrain things even further than even the rules require, as especially 5e rules are fuzzy. Choosing not to apply circumstancial modifiers (when they are advocated for everywhere in the rules) makes for a world that is even more constrained.

Finally, I'm not changing any mechanic. I have consistently proven to you that i actually use the same RAW you do, just in a different combination.

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

It has absolutely everything to do. If a player uses a flourish (rule) to tell me that he is particularly watching that pillar because he knows that is where the rogue went to hide, I will apply this as a modifier to the stealth/perception check, or even decide that the rogue could not hide without even rolling because he chose a stupid place to hide and the player was attentive enough to notice and take countermeasures. And, by the way, this is absolutely, 100% RAW.

Moreover, it's exactly what is described in "Ignoring the dice". And, exactly as described, it has advantages and drawbacks, the advantage is that it encourages all players to be more involved in roleplaying their character in the game world rather than looking at the technical way hiding works.

And I agree that the disadvantage is that it discourages certain approaches such as a rogue to try to hide behind a single pillar where he would be found instantly. But it does not dictate anything to the rogue player, he can still make that choice, just as any player can make the choice to run away and take an AoO if he thinks that it's more advantageous for other reasons.

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.

The problem is that, following 3e, we have whole generations of gamers who play the game extremely technically, but have very thin skin about it. Once more, all these words are words from the Devs (and I completely agree with them):

• To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game.
• The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.
• This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities.
• 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.

Players who are concerned about DPR of classes compared to each other are fine (as long as they don't, as is often the case, become too much of a powergamer or even worse, a munchkin), it's just that their focus is on rules and their importance in the game, and therefore less on story and roleplaying. Again, nothing wrong with that, but a cheese can only be cut in parts that amount to a circle. If the rules are so important that they are the basis for a game, that's fine, just assume it.

I totally assume my choice to focus on story and roleplaying at the expense of rules (which does not mean that I break them for fun or on purpose, but that I usually use them creatively too), it would be nice if people who make the opposite choice would also assume it gracefully without feeling offended by simple truths, and at least understand what the developers of the game are saying, even when they make their own choices.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I totally assume my choice to focus on story and roleplaying at the expense of rules (which does not mean that I break them for fun or on purpose, but that I usually use them creatively too), it would be nice if people who make the opposite choice would also assume it gracefully without feeling offended by simple truths, and at least understand what the developers of the game are saying, even when they make their own choices.

If your game is so focused on story and roleplaying, why is it so important that the rogue is mechanically penalized for his choice of action in combat? It seems to me as if your game is no more or less mechanistic than anybody else's in this thread, you just happen to be using slightly different mechanics than the ones that are in the book.

When the story already contains fighters that can go toe to toe with an elephant in close combat and win easily, is it really that hard to make room for sneaky rogues that can pop out repeatedly from the same spot and attack faster than the enemy can react?

 

[Lyxen]

If your game is so focused on story and roleplaying, why is it so important that the rogue is mechanically penalized for his choice of action in combat? It seems to me as if your game is no more or less mechanistic than anybody else's in this thread, you just happen to be using slightly different mechanics than the ones that are in the book.

First, let's be clear, I'm not using different mechanics that the ones in the books. All the mechanics that I am using are 100% RAW.

Second, I'm not penalising the rogues for the sake of it (I love rogues), what I want (in general, and in this particular case) is for players to project themselves in the game world to visualise and really live the adventures there, and allowing actions which look silly just because the framework of rules authorises them from a simple reading just breaks our suspension of disbelief.

And for that I want exactly what the "Ignoring the Dice" section says, I want the players to be creative about their actions, and be rewarded with the results of these rather than just roll dices hoping for a high number. I want their choices to matter, because it's also what allows them to steer the story.

When the story already contains fighters that can go toe to toe with an elephant in close combat and win easily, is it really that hard to make room for sneaky rogues that can pop out repeatedly from the same spot and attack faster than the enemy can react?

On this one, I will admit to some bias, because at least the front line fighters take some risk by going toe to toe with their foes. I have honestly little sympathy for the ranged damage dealer who takes no risk at all but still want to compete in terms of numbers and brag about their DPR.

And I find it significant by the way that this discussion focuses about the ranged rogue, and claiming that he should have advantage every round, when totally forgetting the melee rogue which has nothing like that in his arsenal (once more proving that the rogue is NOT intended to gain advantage every round by design).

So if you want to be efficient, you will have to take some risks or be clever about it, that is the stuff of stories much more than hiding at the same spot for the entire fight and just wanting to rack in the damage points, which I personally find a very boring way to play. But to each his own.

By the way, one of the reasons I love rogue is the exploration phase of the game, in which they excel, and which gives them a lot of spotlight when done right, with thrilling risks/rewards. And something that the frontline fighter will never have either.

As our evenings are probably at least 50% pure roleplay with the rest being at most equal part exploration (in the wider sense) and combat, it also balances things out much more than DPR in terms of interest for the players.

 

[Horwath]

IMO, rogue(and all characters) should ALMOST always have a chance to Hide in combat. Unless they are in the middle of an empty football pitch with floodlight working at 110%.

However, depending on light and features of terrain you could have several options for modifying stealth check.

1. no stealth possible. This should be used very rarely as described above.

2. stealth at disadvantage and enemy has +5 to Passive perception score.

3. stealth at disadvantage.

4. normal stealth.

5. stealth at advantage.

6. stealth at advantage and enemy has -5 to passive perception.

variant 4 and little less 3 should be most frequent. 5 and 2 sometimes and 1 and 6 vary rarely.

having similar hiding places in same combat after 1st time should warrant disadvantage on stealth checks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

All of this comes from the way you describe it. To summarize, you don't care if the player makes the least effort to have a logical situation that can be described, you stopped applying circumstancial modifiers linked to player actions and descriptions and you just let the dice roll, interpreting the results.

Pray tell how this supports roleplaying and storytelling as much as an approach where everything that the players and the DM describe, in character, is taking into account and influences how the world works ?

First my play is dumb (or requires every creature to be dumb, which isn't actually different). Then it was that I don't roleplay at all. Now I'm illogical, and you're demanding for me to show how my approach to hiding could possibly support roleplaying or storytelling.

Dude, you're a peach.

The funny part is that you're saying I'm illogical because I don't require the player to make the least effort, but then, neither do you. I let the rogue hide in the same place with no penalty, meaning the rogue could succeed at this or not succeed at this due to their skill check. You ALSO let the rogue hide in the same place, but apply a penalty, meaning the rogue could succeed at this or not succeed at this due to their skill check. The only difference here is the range of successful rolls! In both games, the rogue can make the same effort and still succeed, meaning you're now faced with explaining the same thing I do -- how that happened. So, if I'm illogical, you're in the same boat, because both ways can end up with the rogue successfully hiding in the same place.

As for your demand there, I simply do not believe that roleplaying or storytelling (whatever you mean by this) are actually at all related, in any way, to making the same choice to apply disadvantage to a given roll as you do. Roleplaying is not defined as "making the same choices @Lyxen does."

See above, it did not sound like it.

Moreover, it's not like there are 3 paths. There is a wide variety of approaches in between. And if the "Rolling with it" has the drawback of "roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success", the middle path also has it, although to a lesser degree.

Finally, the middle path does not have any drawbacks, but neither does it have advantages, and in particular:

• This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer
• Counters the diminishing of roleplay mentioned above.

Hmm. The Middle Path says:

"Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

Man, but those sure sound like advantages.

Presented that way, it's a completely different matter, but looking simply at combat/stealth, what you are doing is not let the players have their stories (as their declaration do not seem to matter) but let the dices tell the story.

There's nothing bad with that, but it's a very different style of play.

I don't see how their declaration doesn't matter. It would seem to matter very much, as it's the reason for this argument. They could have chosen to dance with an owlbear, and that would have had a very different outcome from trying to hide behind that pillar for a second time.

No, this is just you insisting that you alone have the one right way to make this call, totally ignoring that you can face the exact same outcome of a PC successfully hiding in the same place repeatedly. I mean, an 11th level rogue is mostly going to laugh at "disadvantage" because their minimum DEX(Stealth) check is going to be... carry the one... 21 (and that's for a rogue with a DEX of 15/16) with disadvantage. A 21 beats almost every passive perception in the Monster Manual. A rogue of any level with an elven cloak ignores your ruling outright -- they don't get disadvantage and the creature can't get advantage.

As for the general style of play, my current campaign is a complete sandboxed version of Avernus, they are completely choosing their own path, it's just that, as a DM, I maintain the overall consistency of the game world, encourage heroic actions and make sure that what they decide matters more than random dice rolls.

I have a long screed somewhere about how "sandbox" doesn't at all mean "players make their own choices" any more than they do in a choose your own adventure book. Not terribly relevant now, because I never once questioned how you played your game -- I defended how I play against your baseless and insulting accusations.

4e was extremely restrictive in terms of character design, limiting actions to a constrictive grid, etc. you can call this only "honest about it", but I'm pretty sure the whole community will convey the fact that they felt restricted by the system, whereas 3e was if anything much too open in terms of character design, leading to an explosion of stupid combos.

3e was as well, unless you just ignored things about the game -- honestly a common occurrence.

They started the game amongst friends using PF, switched to 5e when it went public, and they all say it did not change their game that much. Now, you can call them all liars, but I personally believe them as they are not playing technically and still have tons of fun, visibly, and still as friends.

"[T]hat much" is doing a ton of work in your conjecture, here. And the actors appear to be having fun? Really? Fascinating.

But your opinion just reinforces my perception of your games as being extremely technical, and therefore less roleplaying and story-oriented. Once more, no judgement, to each table their own balance.

"I do not care what it is you say, my opinion of the thing I've never seen and only have this one statement of means that I must, unfailingly, be correct in assuming everything about how you play!"

Yes, okay, checks out.

And, once more, I refer to you the opinion of the Devs, which is that WHATEVER A PC IS DOING AND NO MATTER HOW ENGAGED HE IS, A TABLE IS NOT DOING WRONG IF THEY ASSUME THAT THEY ALL KEEP TRACK OF INVISIBLE CREATURES ACROSS THE BATTLEFIELD.

I have no idea where this comes from, because this hasn't been a topic in my posts at all. But, and this will be a shock to you, until an invisible creature hides or something special happens, the location of invisible creatures is known in my game. This doesn't have anything to do with hiding, but with invisibility. In my games, there's an inherent flaw in invisibility that reveals general location (ie, in a space) unless steps are taken to minimize it (ie, hiding).

You seem to be laboring under many misconceptions and should probably stop making assumptions while you're behind.

Again, not my words, the devs (This approach rewards creativity). It's more creative to CREATE situations by describing what you are doing than just rolling dices and inventing explanations.

You're in the same boat, friend, as you let the rogue roll dice to hide in the same place a second time and then have to explain it afterwards. Let's not continue to insist that I don't reward creativity or that I just roll dice whenever. I generally require players to tell me what the goal of an action is and what their approach is. I find, "I'm going to hide behind the pillar to get the drop on the monster," to be a sufficient goal and approach that is uncertain and warrants a roll to find out what happens. You find that, if done more than once, this task gets harder. Okay. You can do that. What you can't do is explain that this make the only logical sense and that failure to do what you do mean no roleplaying, dumb characters, no storytelling, that it's just rolling dice, and that it's illogical. You're being insulting, demeaning, and saying that you have the only right opinion on this matter.

So your argument is that they are the same ? Impressive indeed.

No, my argument is that you're ignoring the complexities of one while insisting on the complexities of the other. You don't, for a moment, stop to consider that there's any need for the player to declare specific and different actions for their fighter to avoid penalties in melee because the character is assumed to have a deep well of skill to cover this. And, I agree, it would be silly to do so. However, you immediately start examining the rogue, totally ignoring that the rogue character is extremely talented at hiding, and demand that the player cover this by declaring new actions. We're talking about skilled practitioners of their arts doing what they do, but you treat each of these differently because you've already imagined how it works for each, and chosen to do so differently.

To me, the rogue is really good at hiding, so unless something is especially difficult, I'm going to let them be good at hiding without disadvantage. And a creature trying to not be caught off guard really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

Honestly, nothing you have said has taken my breath away.

Good?

I see only a very technical game where all that is important is allowing the poor rogue is DPR compared to the nasty Champion fighter.

You have one instance of how I make rulings, and your opinion is that it's highly technical because I don't make the same choice you do, even as you claim to be using the rules bettererest because you use more of them. I mean... okay. I don't know why the Champion fighter has to be nasty, though - I think it's a perfectly cromulent class. But, no, I don't particularly care what the rogue's DPR is, in part because even if I just give the rogue permanent and irrevocable advantage, it doesn't break the game. So, that lets me not care about supporting or suppressing the rogue, but instead I just adjudicate the game as best as I can. I don't think that hiding in the same spot is a worthwhile care, so I don't do anything about it. And the result, game-wise, isn't distorting, so I can not care about it. What I can do is get the player to tell me interesting ways they hide (or don't) which immerses them in the game and encourages creativity and makes for a memorable game.

You say that you don't take into account the descriptions and don't care about the logic of the world, because it's all about applying the rules before looking at the situation and the story, which you used to do and have now abandonned.

Sorry, but I didn't say anything of the kind. I said I cared about things like this before I realized that they aren't actually about the logic of the world, but about me. I had an idea, and by George, I was gonna make that idea what happens, and force it into the game. I thought there should be disadvantage because I had a preconceived notion and I was gonna make that true, no matter what. But then, I did it, and rogues kept succeeding at hiding despite it. And that galled, I mean, like, I got mad at the rules for letting this thing that I thought shouldn't happen happen and I had to deal with explaining it.

And then, I slowly realized that my preconception wasn't the only way it could happen. The rogue could be really good at hiding and timing, and the monster actually cannot fully focus on the hiding spot for the slightest tell, ready to react AND be still 100% as engaged with everything else that engaged them the first time. So, I realized it wasn't the world, or logic, that required this ruling, but me -- it was my choice, based on my single view of how things should be. I changed, and let the world become more, and let the characters become more, and stopped stepping on everything just because I had some idea. I let the game work as it does, and moved my ideas from "if you hid there before, the monster suddenly gains extra alertness to you," to, "the monster can be distracted, or you could make a clever move, or something, so let's find out together rather than me just choosing."

None of this aligns to your rather ridiculous assumptions.

Despite all what you say, it does not sound that way, since you apparently dropped situational modifiers.

I most certainly haven't. Advantage and disadvantage are a constant friend in my games -- they show up all the time. They don't show up here. You really need to stop making these assumptions, mate.

From all the vocabulary that you are using, and the fact that the rules are the absolute basis of your games, you are doing something even stronger than a DM defining the reality of the game world (which is, by the way, his role: "The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story. "). You are letting abstract rules do this for you, THEN shape the world around this. THEN allow the players to adventure in there, but they must respect the abstract rules more than the logic of the world.

Again, I have no idea how you're getting here, like, at all. I don't apply disadvantage to a creature hiding in the same place again means this? Dude, take some chill pills.

Thankfully, this does not detract from the fun, as the game can be played in many different ways. And people can have fun around games that are nothing but rules, for example boardgames. All the better for you if you add roleplaying to the mix.

Still it's not my personal experience writing this (although I totally agree with it) : "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

The rules are totally secondary to what's best about the game, in the devs' own words.

Here's a funny thing -- you don't need their permission to ignore rules. You have that as a person. So, this statement is just chaff. I mean, the disagreement here is how to apply a discretionary rule to a specific situation, right? Neither of us is professing to ignore the rules. You've even claimed that your approach is better because you used more rules! Now, because you just want to dunk on my game which you have some crazy assumptions about, you're bringing out ignoring the rules as somehow a slam against me... using rules? I don't know, because your argument seems to be that there's only one right way to imagine and apply the game world, and it's your way, so much so that even using the rules is wrong if it conflicts with doing what you do. Have you considered how this actually sounds?

I'm not worried, but it's not a competition anyway, it's all about each table having fun their own way.

Except my way is dumb, not roleplaying, not storytelling (still not sure what this means), illogical, mechanistic, and against the core conception of D&D which is to ignore the rules. Gotcha.

The evidence has been provided by your own mouth, time and time again. Playing technically does not mean that there is no roleplay, by the way, or that it's wrong. But when you do a whole post to justify giving advantage every round to the rogue to up his DPR to the champion fighter, one can see where your preoccupations lie within the game.

Time and again, meaning this one topic of whether or not a discretionary penalty is applied in a specific situation. From this, you can assume the entire rest of my game, and this one point becomes time and time again and full evidence of everything else you imagine.

 

[Lyxen]

IMO, rogue(and all characters) should ALMOST always have a chance to Hide in combat. Unless they are in the middle of an empty football pitch with floodlight working at 110%.

With that formulation of "almost always", I think we agree, it's just that because hiding takes their action, most of the other classes make very little use of it in combat.

After that, your repartition is interesting, it's just that I really think that it comes down to providing interesting battlefields for all the characters present anyway, with some variety so that everyone has a chance so shine.

 

[Lyxen]

First my play is dumb (or requires every creature to be dumb, which isn't actually different). Then it was that I don't roleplay at all. Now I'm illogical, and you're demanding for me to show how my approach to hiding could possibly support roleplaying or storytelling.

When you stop putting words in my mouth, maybe we'll be able to have a constructive conversation. But at this stage, I'm afraid that there is not much that can be said.

The funny part is that you're saying I'm illogical because I don't require the player to make the least effort, but then, neither do you. I let the rogue hide in the same place with no penalty, meaning the rogue could succeed at this or not succeed at this due to their skill check. You ALSO let the rogue hide in the same place, but apply a penalty, meaning the rogue could succeed at this or not succeed at this due to their skill check. The only difference here is the range of successful rolls! In both games, the rogue can make the same effort and still succeed, meaning you're now faced with explaining the same thing I do -- how that happened. So, if I'm illogical, you're in the same boat, because both ways can end up with the rogue successfully hiding in the same place.

It seems that for you, the actual chance of success, and therefore its likelihood to be chosen by the player, does not have much influence, which I find very bizarre.

Roleplaying is not defined as "making the same choices @Lyxen does."

It's not, it's just that, as the devs themselves say, some approaches encourage it while other discourage it.

Hmm. The Middle Path says:

"Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

Man, but those sure sound like advantages.

Only it's not what you are doing, since you don't encourage them to pay attention to the game world, as you disregard circumstantial modifiers.

I don't see how their declaration doesn't matter. It would seem to matter very much, as it's the reason for this argument. They could have chosen to dance with an owlbear, and that would have had a very different outcome from trying to hide behind that pillar for a second time.

No, this is just you insisting that you alone have the one right way to make this call, totally ignoring that you can face the exact same outcome of a PC successfully hiding in the same place repeatedly. I mean, an 11th level rogue is mostly going to laugh at "disadvantage" because their minimum DEX(Stealth) check is going to be... carry the one... 21 (and that's for a rogue with a DEX of 15/16) with disadvantage. A 21 beats almost every passive perception in the Monster Manual. A rogue of any level with an elven cloak ignores your ruling outright -- they don't get disadvantage and the creature can't get advantage.

And immediately you fall into the technical side of things. QED.

And no, a rogue with an elven cloak doesn't ignore the ruling, because maybe they won't get disadvantage, but they won't get advantage either, and the other will not have advantage, but will not have disadvantage either.

I have a long screed somewhere about how "sandbox" doesn't at all mean "players make their own choices" any more than they do in a choose your own adventure book. Not terribly relevant now, because I never once questioned how you played your game -- I defended how I play against your baseless and insulting accusations.

That's just because you take them as accusations. And maybe you should have asked questions, then...

3e was as well, unless you just ignored things about the game -- honestly a common occurrence.

This is a very bizarre sentence responding to " 3e was if anything much too open in terms of character design, leading to an explosion of stupid combos."

"[T]hat much" is doing a ton of work in your conjecture, here. And the actors appear to be having fun? Really? Fascinating.

I happen to believe these guys, whose game I have actually witnessed, rather than the word of a random guy on the internet ?

"I do not care what it is you say, my opinion of the thing I've never seen and only have this one statement of means that I must, unfailingly, be correct in assuming everything about how you play!"

Yes, okay, checks out.

More and more, with each of your replies. You never give one example of actual roleplay, the only thing that you are doing is spouting technicalities.

I have no idea where this comes from, because this hasn't been a topic in my posts at all. But, and this will be a shock to you, until an invisible creature hides or something special happens, the location of invisible creatures is known in my game.

And this despite the fact that some people are fighting hand to hand ? How amazing their awareness of their surroundings ! But I'm sure that you impose disadvantage on all their rolls just for taking the time to track that invisible guy in the corner.

This doesn't have anything to do with hiding, but with invisibility. In my games, there's an inherent flaw in invisibility that reveals general location (ie, in a space) unless steps are taken to minimize it (ie, hiding).

Well, my games don't have spaces as we don't play on a grid, but it's a very bizarre invisibility then.

In any case, you are constantly ignoring the fact that the Devs themselves tell you that it's inherent for combattants in such dangerous worlds to track invisible creature without that bizarre flaw, so honestly it should be easier to keep track of the rogue that went to hide again behind the same pillar.

You seem to be laboring under many misconceptions and should probably stop making assumptions while you're behind.

Behind what ?

You're in the same boat, friend, as you let the rogue roll dice to hide in the same place a second time and then have to explain it afterwards. Let's not continue to insist that I don't reward creativity or that I just roll dice whenever. I generally require players to tell me what the goal of an action is and what their approach is. I find, "I'm going to hide behind the pillar to get the drop on the monster,"

And that's another difference. I never require the players to tell me the goal of their action, just what they are doing. Actually, I require them NOT to tell anyone, in the past (especially in 3e) it created tons of discussions with other players who them wanted to discuss whether it was an appropriate goal (from their perspective) and whether it was the optimal step to approach it.

to be a sufficient goal and approach that is uncertain and warrants a roll to find out what happens. You find that, if done more than once, this task gets harder. Okay. You can do that. What you can't do is explain that this make the only logical sense and that failure to do what you do mean no roleplaying, dumb characters, no storytelling, that it's just rolling dice, and that it's illogical. You're being insulting, demeaning, and saying that you have the only right opinion on this matter.

Again, not my opinion alone but that of the devs, and neither them nor I consider it a flaw.

After that, since apparently you are still on the line that circumstantial modifiers do not matter, I wonder what the point is of all these descriptions if it has not impact on the resolution...

No, my argument is that you're ignoring the complexities of one while insisting on the complexities of the other. You don't, for a moment, stop to consider that there's any need for the player to declare specific and different actions for their fighter to avoid penalties in melee because the character is assumed to have a deep well of skill to cover this. And, I agree, it would be silly to do so. However, you immediately start examining the rogue, totally ignoring that the rogue character is extremely talented at hiding, and demand that the player cover this by declaring new actions. We're talking about skilled practitioners of their arts doing what they do, but you treat each of these differently because you've already imagined how it works for each, and chosen to do so differently.

And my point of view is that any skilled practioner of stealth would not go and hide in the same place again and again, or any obvious place, because that would make them too easy to find. Just as any practitioner of swordplay would not try the same sequence twice because the opponent would skewer him.

To me, the rogue is really good at hiding, so unless something is especially difficult, I'm going to let them be good at hiding without disadvantage. And a creature trying to not be caught off guard really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

And to me, every combat should be dangerous (we gloss over the trivial ones with a few descriptions, there are more interesting things to do than play them technically), so there should be challenge. When your life is on the line, would you really do the easy lazy thing ? Roleplaying, again, rather than relying on the mechanics of the system saying that the rogue is really good. Because the adversaries are really good too, you know...

You have one instance of how I make rulings, and your opinion is that it's highly technical because I don't make the same choice you do, even as you claim to be using the rules bettererest because you use more of them.

No, I have multiple instances of you saying that you used to, but now disregard circumstantial modifiers.

I mean... okay. I don't know why the Champion fighter has to be nasty, though - I think it's a perfectly cromulent class. But, no, I don't particularly care what the rogue's DPR is, in part because even if I just give the rogue permanent and irrevocable advantage, it doesn't break the game.

Only the ranged rogue, obviously. And how does it enhance the game, exactly ?

So, that lets me not care about supporting or suppressing the rogue, but instead I just adjudicate the game as best as I can. I don't think that hiding in the same spot is a worthwhile care, so I don't do anything about it. And the result, game-wise, isn't distorting, so I can not care about it. What I can do is get the player to tell me interesting ways they hide (or don't) which immerses them in the game and encourages creativity and makes for a memorable game.

And tell me, do they feel creative when hiding in the same spot again ? What stories do they tell you to justify this "interesting" way to hide, I'm really curious.

Sorry, but I didn't say anything of the kind. I said I cared about things like this before I realized that they aren't actually about the logic of the world, but about me. I had an idea, and by George, I was gonna make that idea what happens, and force it into the game. I thought there should be disadvantage because I had a preconceived notion and I was gonna make that true, no matter what. But then, I did it, and rogues kept succeeding at hiding despite it. And that galled, I mean, like, I got mad at the rules for letting this thing that I thought shouldn't happen happen and I had to deal with explaining it.

And then, I slowly realized that my preconception wasn't the only way it could happen. The rogue could be really good at hiding and timing, and the monster actually cannot fully focus on the hiding spot for the slightest tell, ready to react AND be still 100% as engaged with everything else that engaged them the first time. So, I realized it wasn't the world, or logic, that required this ruling, but me -- it was my choice, based on my single view of how things should be. I changed, and let the world become more, and let the characters become more, and stopped stepping on everything just because I had some idea. I let the game work as it does, and moved my ideas from "if you hid there before, the monster suddenly gains extra alertness to you," to, "the monster can be distracted, or you could make a clever move, or something, so let's find out together rather than me just choosing."

So, in the end, instead of taking another look at the rules and the stupid (in your own perception) way they dealt with it, you just dropped it and let the (stupid) rule have it say. So instead of making the world your own, you let RULES, not even your own, dictate how the game works. Exactly as I thought.

And you think it's better to have everything dictated by external rules than by your sensitivity as a DM ? In the end, it's still dictated to the players, you know...

None of this aligns to your rather ridiculous assumptions.

You would not be that riled if they were that ridiculous.

I most certainly haven't. Advantage and disadvantage are a constant friend in my games -- they show up all the time. They don't show up here. You really need to stop making these assumptions, mate.

Alright, just take care about what you are saying then.

Again, I have no idea how you're getting here, like, at all. I don't apply disadvantage to a creature hiding in the same place again means this? Dude, take some chill pills.

You proved it again just a few paragraphs above. The RULES are the law of the world, even when they contradicted your personal feeling at start. isn't that the case ?

Here's a funny thing -- you don't need their permission to ignore rules. You have that as a person. So, this statement is just chaff. I mean, the disagreement here is how to apply a discretionary rule to a specific situation, right? Neither of us is professing to ignore the rules. You've even claimed that your approach is better because you used more rules! Now, because you just want to dunk on my game which you have some crazy assumptions about, you're bringing out ignoring the rules as somehow a slam against me... using rules? I don't know, because your argument seems to be that there's only one right way to imagine and apply the game world, and it's your way, so much so that even using the rules is wrong if it conflicts with doing what you do. Have you considered how this actually sounds?

And have you considered how you let just rules dictate absolutely everything in your game when the first thing that the writers of said rules explicitly say "these are just guidelines, they are not the best thing in the game, create your own world and make your own rules ?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

IMO, rogue(and all characters) should ALMOST always have a chance to Hide in combat. Unless they are in the middle of an empty football pitch with floodlight working at 110%.

However, depending on light and features of terrain you could have several options for modifying stealth check.

1. no stealth possible. This should be used very rarely as described above.

2. stealth at disadvantage and enemy has +5 to Passive perception score.

3. stealth at disadvantage.

4. normal stealth.

5. stealth at advantage.

6. stealth at advantage and enemy has -5 to passive perception.

variant 4 and little less 3 should be most frequent. 5 and 2 sometimes and 1 and 6 vary rarely.

having similar hiding places in same combat after 1st time should warrant disadvantage on stealth checks.

Why? I mean, it's fine if you do this, there aren't gamer police, but the argument for why it should warrant disadvantage is unclear. If a creature is paying extra attention, sure, disadvantage is a cool choice, but I question the assumption that creatures automatically have additional focus to bring to bear. A creature in a melee, for instance, already has quite a lot on their plate, and I don't see how they have extra focus to place on watching a specific hiding place. I mean, a competent ally is going to know your hiding tactics and can incorporate distracting attack patterns to draw attention away momentarily, which is all that's needed.

There's this strange, stark space where people seem to be applying the thinking for hiding -- one where all other distractions fall away and it's only this one interaction -- observer vs hider -- that's considered. To me, part of a proficiency in Stealth is an awareness of how to take advantage of momentary distraction, and just hiding in the same place doesn't, to me, justify disadvantage.

 

[jayoungr]

Once more, the RAW never says that he should get it.

Yes, it does. On page 192. Successful Hide check grants the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker. It's right there in black and white. (I know you're going to mention "discovery" now, but you just said above that RAW doesn't grant the benefit at all.)

It's not a question of power, it's a question of logic of the game world and of taking into account the intelligence and roleplay of the protagonists.

You're very big on justifying why the target creature should know where the rogue is. Why do you put so little emphasis on the rogue's skills in being able to evade that notice?

Halflings are a special case of "always hiding at the same place" that I've seen too many times trying to get abused. It's interesting and powerful, but any adversary worth its salt will not be fooled twice.

Then what is the purpose of a stealth check? Or to put it another way, if the rogue succeeds on a stealth check at whatever difficulty level you set, do you then turn around and say that the target knows the rogue is there anyway?

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, it does. On page 192. Successful Hide check grants the benefits of being an Unseen Attacker. It's right there in black and white. (I know you're going to mention "discovery" now, but you just said above that RAW doesn't grant the benefit at all.)

This is assuming that the attacker is indeed unseen. If he is seen coming out from behind the pillar, he is not unseen, therefore no advantage.

You're very big on justifying why the target creature should know where the rogue is. Why do you put so little emphasis on the rogue's skills in being able to evade that notice?

Because we are talking about a rogue going to hide behind the same single pillar every single time. The rogue cannot hide while in plain sight, but if there is only one place to hide and he disappears, where do you think he went ?

The rogue might be skilled, but the adversaries are not mandatorily idiots either, or unskilled at fighting stealthy opponents.

Then what is the purpose of a stealth check? Or to put it another way, if the rogue succeeds on a stealth check at whatever difficulty level you set, do you then turn around and say that the target knows the rogue is there anyway?

The purpose of a check is to see whether the rogue is hidden or not. But first remember that a check does not necessarily mean a roll. Second I will certainly not announce the result, especially for a stealth check. The rogue will always believe that he has been stealthful.

Finally, see the case above. If there is only one place to hide, even if the target cannot see or hear the rogue, he knows that the rogue is there and where he is...