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

[Nefermandias]

This thread is painfully reminding me why I used to hate 5e back when it came out.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

You said all those things, what words did I put in your mouth. You said I was illogical. You said my approach requires all creatures to be dumb. You said I don't have roleplaying or storytelling in my games. I quoted you, we can all scroll back up and see it.

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.

It doesn't matter if it has influence -- my job isn't to guide the players at all. The results, though, do matter to me, because that's what I adjudicate.

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

This is specious. The devs saying that one approach may discourage roleplaying (and nothing at all about encouraging it) doesn't address the fact that you're defining "not roleplaying" as "not making the same choice I do in this one circumstance." You're still defining what constitutes roleplaying, only now you're trying to hide behind the devs -- who aren't supporting you in this argument at all.

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.

Huh. Really. I don't let the rogue hide in the open. They have to get behind something that allows hiding, so already your asserting is false. And I don't disregard circumstantial modifiers -- I don't apply the discretionary modifier in this one case. You're making up strawmen to beat on.

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

I do so love how you berate me for ignoring circumstantial modifiers, which are a technical rule, while telling me I just go straight to the technical things. It's like you can have both sides of the argument at the same time -- it's not technical when you do it, but it's technical when I do. The only difference is, of course, that you think disadvantage applies and I don't. And then, in a moment of supreme irony, you actually use quod erat demonstrandum to sum up the point.

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.

Yes, they can hide normally as often as they like, and now you have to explain, like I do, how success looks. You've avoided this point, by the way. I've noticed. It's a thorny one. You've berated me for just taking the result of the dice and explaining it and how that sucks the roleplaying and storytelling out of my game, but, you have the same problem if your rogue makes the check even with disadvantage. You haven't said that you require ANY special explanation for this action, you just apply disad and then skip over what happens if the rogue still succeeds (which is pretty likely, honestly).

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

Oh please, of course they are accusations. You've demanded I defend them, as well, directly, just in the last post in the first few lines! And it's the height of irony that you, of all people, are suggesting that questions should have been asked. You've jumped to lots of conclusions and not asked questions for them.

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."

No, because I disagree that 3e was open at all in character design. It just hid how closed it was behind trap options, absurd prereqs, and generally understanding of how the game worked (martials sucked, for instance). 3e wasn't at all open, it just wasn't as obvious about the walls as 4e was. 4e dispensed with the obfuscations and trap options and just put it out there. The same archetypes and concept space was there, and I'd argue it was more open in 4e than in 3e due to it being very easy to see how to effectively build an archtype.

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

Dude, those guys are also random people on the internet. And actors with a profit motive, to boot.

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'm sorry, I'm supposed to give you an example of roleplaying in my games so that you can stop telling me there's no roleplaying in my games?

Okay, I had a barbarian PC in one of my games that chose to get into pit fighting and would take every opportunity to self-promote his pit-fighting career during social interactions. This lead to him building quite a nice following, which he leveraged when he orchestrated a championship bout as a cover for a caper, fighting in the ring and stalling the fight as long as possible (which was tough because his opponent was serious) and managed to leverage his fanbase to cause a commotion and get the fight stopped for a bit as they stormed the pit and had to be cleared.

Or, did you want moments of play where I apply technical modifiers to rolls to indicate roleplaying? Because, so far, you're arguing I don't roleplay because I don't apply disadvantage to a roll -- a technical concern -- for a specific set of actions and you do.

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.

No, why would I? This is a very odd argument. You start by all caps telling me I don't use invisibility the way the rules indicate, and then, when I correct your error, tell me that following this rule means that a different rule has to work the way you say. Not connected. A rogue hiding is not invisibility, it's hiding. The rogue has particular skill at hiding, so I allow that they may know more about it than I do, and so let the skill speak for itself. You, on the other hand, assume that you know more, and so you restrict the skill. Okay, but invisibility doesn't really enter into this. As I said, in my games there's a flaw with invisibility that allows tracking unless steps are taken to counter it. No more attention is needed than to notice a non-invisible person. The benefit is that the invisible person can take those steps at any time and attempt to hide, the non-invisible person cannot.

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

So, it was the use of a space (which exists in TotM, as well-- creatures have a space they occupy, being small, large, huge, etc.) that trips you up here?

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.

The devs don't tell me any such thing. What the rules say is that invisible creatures are unseen. That they can attempt to hide at any time. So, that means they are unseen, but not hidden, by invisibility. Adding a touch of fiction to explain this in world and create a consistent fictional basis for the rule is bizarre? More bizarre than having infinite additional attention to use, but only after someone hides?

I mean, your argument is that the alert monster doesn't get any special ability to notice the rogue hiding the first time, despite all of the same concerns being there -- the monster doesn't want to get hit or sneak attack damage applied, etc. Once the rogue hides, then the monster gets extra attention to devote to looking for that rogue, but only if the rogue hides in the same place again. If the rogue moves 10' to the next pillar down the line of pillars, the monster is plumb out of luck -- no extra attention for you, monster! It's only if the rogue hides in the same spot does the monster discover extra attention. What's more, is that if there are 5 rogues behind 5 pillars, the monster gets 5 extra allotments of attention, one for each rogue, to watch for them hiding in the same place! Further, if there's someone invisible, the monster gets extra attention for that, as well, because there's nothing other than extra attention that can possibly explain how they track the invisible creature to an area specific enough for targeting that area.

Behind what ?

This argument. You've had to delve into one-true-wayism and resort to insults about my game based on sheer misinformed conjecture. To me, that's not a place you want to be. YMMV.

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.

I don't have that issue, because tables I play at establish a social contract where this isn't allowed unless the player invites it. Friendly questions are fine, if it's to establish understanding about something confusing, but if you don't get to tell others how they should play their character. I don't play at tables where this isn't part of the social contract. It's rude, in my opinion, and I'm not going to alter how I play to correct for rudeness. I'm going to deal with that out of game, at the table, and not in game. YMMV.

The point of having the player tell me the goal of the action is so that I don't accidentally nix it when we resolve it. Without the goal, I might very well narrate a success on the action that negates the intent of the action, and that's bad juju for me. So, goal and approach. Goal so that both the player and I understand the stakes of the action and there's clear communication, and approach so that I can judge how difficult the action is.

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

Nowhere do the devs tell you that you should apply disadvantage to a creature attempting to hide in the same space as they just did. Nowhere. They offer you the option, as a GM, to make a judgement call on circumstances, but this isn't justification for the call, it's permission to make one. The actual call is up to you and the devs are silent on this specific issue. You can't claim top cover for your ruling, here, just cover for your ability to make a ruling.

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...

How is it that I've said multiple times I use plenty of ad/disad that you keep saying this? Do not do it again, as you're calling me a liar now.

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.

Yes, I understand that you have a preconceived notion of what should happen, and so use the rules to enforce that. But, an actual really skilled practitioner of stealth in 5e can largely ignore your ruling because their stealth score will still be above that of almost all creatures' passive perceptions. So, at some point, your argument fails because it's ignorable by the skilled. The difference between us is that I don't bother creating a situation where I'm indicating this is not going to work and then be faced with it working. I don't bother with the preconception about hiding.

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...

If the adversaries are really good, then they will have passive perceptions that support this. See, I don't assume that adversaries are as competent as the characters in all things, so that it's an even field. I take them as they are, and that's based on their stats. Most monsters are actually NOT nearly as skilled at noticing things as the rogue is at hiding. They're more than sufficient to detect most paladins and wizards, though. Surely you're not suggesting that the passive perception listed in the stat block isn't reflective of the fiction for that creature?

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

No, you don't have any, because I've never said that. I've said the opposite. You have one instance of me saying I used to apply a modifier to this specific thing, but have changed my mind and no longer do, and the reasons I made that change. This isn't expandable. Logically, you can argue from the general to the specific -- this means that generally true things are usually true for specific examples. Like, if I did say I don't use ad/disad, then you could use this general statement reasonably infer that I don't use ad/disad for DEX(Stealth) checks of any kind. But you can't argue from the specific to the general -- you can't take a specific example and assume it's generally true. Like here, where I say I don't use ad/disad solely for hiding in the same spot, a very specific case, and then assuming that I don't use it ever, like you're doing here. This is very faulty logic, and absolutely not true to boot.

Do not make this claim again, or you are explicitly calling me a liar.

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

Why only the ranged rogue? My argument for not caring about DPR doesn't apply to only ranged rogues. As for how it enhances the game, I'm not constantly monitoring for deviations from my assumptions or the need to balance characters between themselves, so I can focus more on the fiction and engaging with the PC's actions.

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.

I don't know, I don't ask, it's not my place to do so. As for the stories, they get to tell me how their attack looked and how it worked. I've already provided a few of these -- did you miss them? You certainly seemed to pay attention as you attacked this as not actually roleplaying at the time. What guarantees do I have I'm not just walking into the same thing here? It's not like a have a lot of faith in you not being insulting or demeaning towards me.

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...

Yes, actually, I do. While this is a ridiculous framing, highly hostile, insulting, and placing words in my mouth (I never once said "stupid" and don't consider applying disad in this case stupid), I do actually think it's better to have an understood and predictable method of resolving things that is player facing, so that they can adequately judge the stakes at play. As such, if there's a rule for hiding, I'm not going to make changes to it unless it's something that is obvious, and I welcome my players to question any judgement I make that appears out of line with this. This keeps me honest about the game. YMMV, but I find that if the players know what they're getting into and it isn't just "GM may I" that I get better engagement at the table with the fiction and their characters. They actually take more risks and get more creative for me because they understand how I'm going to adjudicate things and I'm open about it at the table.

For example, one of players decided that they were going to intimidate a Mindflayer about to eat a compatriot's brain to get the Mindflayer to not eat brains. The Mindflayer was, at that moment, rather in control of the situation. The PC in question had a backstory as a Mindflayer thrall, and was angry about it, so the player said they were leveraging that, using words/phrases they overheard other Mindflayers use to intimidate each other, and demanded the Mindflayer release the captive PC (who was stunned and grappled). I looked at the situation, and said that this sounded Hard (DC 20), because the Mindflayer was in control of the situation and the PCs didn't appear, at that moment, to have the means to defeat him. The approach of using his backstory meant that the PC could claim advantage due to a houserule letting players claim Inspiration to use for an action if they could tie a Bond, Trait, Ideal, or Flaw to it or a major component of backstory, which the player did, creatively, so they got advantage on it. Since this was in the open, the player easily agreed that it did appear Hard, but attempted it anyway, and pegged it, both dice came up gold. So, the Mindflayer didn't eat brains that day, and dropped the PC, and a negotiation took place (the Mindflayer was still in a position of strength, but the successful intimidate meant he was temporarily "friendly"). The outcome of that wasn't as nice, though, with favors traded that very much favored the Mindflayer.

So, there, you have an example of how I set DCs, how players engage and declare actions at my table, and an instance of ad/disad being added to the roll.

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

Oh, my. First, that you think you're riling me. Exasperating, perhaps, but riled? You wish. Second, the idea that ridiculous claims must be true if someone becomes upset they're leveled? Really? I guess that the way to prove a claim is to accuse someone of something and, if they appear to get upset, it must be true! I mean, wow. I'm honestly chuckling over this, in a, "they actually said that" way.

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

Oh, sweet gods of irony, spare me from more of your torments!

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 ?

No, the rules are how I adjudicate actions at the table. The law of the world is, well, something else. I don't confuse the resolution mechanic for natural laws in the world. I see that there's a question of whether or not a rogue could hide behind something, and thing that's uncertain, as do you. I decide this calls for a resolution via ability check, using the rules, as do you. I determine that this should be a DEX(Stealth) check contested by a passive WIS(Perception) check which sets the DC using the rules, as do you. I don't think there's any addition modification needed due to hiding in the same place, which is under my authority per the rules. You decide that it does, under your authority per the rules. The check is rolled, modifiers added, and the result determines success or failure -- if over the DC, success, if under failure, by the rules, and both of us do this. We then narrate the results of the check, per the rules, the both of us. If success, then the rogue successfully hides, and gets advantage per the unseen attacker rule. If failure, the rogue doesn't hide, and doesn't get advantage per the normal rules.

So, in this case, it appears we're both using the rules exactly the same amount, in the same way with only a single difference that is discretionary. Yet, because I don't decide how you do, I'm suddenly using the rules as a straightjacket while you, who used them exactly the same way except for one judgement call, are not.

And, for goodness sakes, you don't even see this because you've erected some weird strawman about how I play otherwise (which isn't at all in evidence and I've told you that you're incorrect about it) and you're way to busy beating up the stuffed dummy you've built to bother looking at what the disagreement actually is.

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 ?"

No, because I don't. I'm not sure how many times I can tell you this before it sinks in. You are arguing against a figment of your imagination. You may wish to stop.

 

[jayoungr]

OK, where does the RAW say that a rogue should get the benefit of being an unseen attacker ?

Page 192. You're coming up with all sorts of scenarios where it can be negated, but in order for a thing to be negated, it has to happen first.

Remember that there are very often multiple rules that apply, so the hide action does not say that whoever takes it will get the benefit forever.

But you said RAW never says the rogue gets the benefit at all.

No, but you said "So you set the difficulty to hide" which you actually do not,

I said that in response to a scenario where you suggested that hiding should be extra-difficult. In other words, I suggested modifying the DC.

Exactly, what's the point of trying to be silent when the adversary knows exactly where you are and can watch that place ?

If there's no functional difference between how a rogue approaches this situation and how another class (say a ranger) would approach it, despite the fact that the rogue has a tool which the ranger doesn't have and which plays into the rogue's core class fantasy, then I personally think something is off with the scenario.

The difference with the bush is that you do not need to pop out to fire that crossbow, you can do it from inside the bush, because not only can you see out of the bush to ascertain exactly where the target is, but your projectile can easily ignore leaves whereas it cannot ignore a stone pillar.
So watching the bush is not going to allow the watcher any way to see you more clearly (and therefore make you lose your "hidden" status) before you shoot, and therefore the "IF" above resolves in favour of the rogue. Clear ?

If you're inside the bush, you're going to make it shake when you draw your bow. Why does that not count as revealing your location?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Page 192. You're coming up with all sorts of scenarios where it can be negated, but in order for a thing to be negated, it has to happen first.


But you said RAW never says the rogue gets the benefit at all.


I said that in response to a scenario where you suggested that hiding should be extra-difficult. In other words, I suggested modifying the DC.


If there's no functional difference between how a rogue approaches this situation and how another class (say a ranger) would approach it, despite the fact that the rogue has a tool that the ranger doesn't have, then I personally think something is off with the scenario.


If you're inside the bush, you're going to make it shake when you draw your bow. Why does that not count as revealing your location?

Reasons, mostly, It's turtles all the way down.

 

[jayoungr]

This thread is painfully reminding me why I used to hate 5e back when it came out.

Sorry. I certainly didn't intend to decrease anyone's fun when I started it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry. I certainly didn't intend to decrease anyone's fun when I started it.

I wouldn't worry, I don't think you can actually reduce @Nefermandias' fun with 5e.

 

[Nefermandias]

Sorry. I certainly didn't intend to decrease anyone's fun when I started it.

Not your fault. To be honest, your OP was very interesting. It's the people doing those mental gymnastics to deny the obvious who are sucking up my patience. Too bad I can't just drop a thread once I start reading it...

Here is the thing: It's pretty obvious that the intention behind the stealth rules is that a character should be able to hide in combat and get the full benefits of being unseen.

Those rules are not very different from their 4e counterpart, really. The only reason we have this kind of arguments is because 5e chose a "natural language" approach to everything. This is one of the cases where natural language was clearly a detrimental choice.

 

[Lyxen]

Page 192. You're coming up with all sorts of scenarios where it can be negated, but in order for a thing to be negated, it has to happen first.

What happens when you succeed at the hide check, is that you are unseen at that point in time. But as the section on unseen attacker points out, you only get the benefit of having advantage IF you are still unseen when you make the attack.

But you said RAW never says the rogue gets the benefit at all.

The RAW only says that he will get the benefit of advantage IF he is unseen when making the attack. The RAW certainly does not say that he will get the benefit just because he took the hide action at some point in the past.

If there's no functional difference between how a rogue approaches this situation and how another class (say a ranger) would approach it, despite the fact that the rogue has a tool which the ranger doesn't have and which plays into the rogue's core class fantasy, then I personally think something is off with the scenario.

There is no functional difference, the rogue is just usually better (expertise, reliable talent) and quicker (Cunning action) at doing it, which increases his chances of success even when doing something that most people would consider stupid.

If you're inside the bush, you're going to make it shake when you draw your bow. Why does that not count as revealing your location?

Then it's up to the DM to decide. He might say that whirling a swing would reveal your location when firing from a bush, whereas just squeezing the trigger on a pre-loaded crossbow does not. It's all about imagining yourself in the situation, whether the bush is really dense or not, for example, whether you are completely in the middle of it or in an area where branches and leaves are less thick.

Again, no rules can allow for all of this, but a clever player immersing himself in the world will make a good narrative out of it.

 

[jayoungr]

What happens when you succeed at the hide check, is that you are unseen at that point in time.

So you agree, then, that RAW does in fact say that succeeding on the Hide action grants the rogue the benefits of being an unseen attacker/target? In contradiction to post #338, where you said that RAW never says this?

There is no functional difference, the rogue is just usually better (expertise, reliable talent) and quicker (Cunning action) at doing it, which increases his chances of success even when doing something that most people would consider stupid.

You're claiming now that "most people" agree with you? On what do you base this?

And I've already covered why I think there should be a functional difference here.

Then it's up to the DM to decide. He might say that whirling a swing would reveal your location when firing from a bush, whereas just squeezing the trigger on a pre-loaded crossbow does not. It's all about imagining yourself in the situation, whether the bush is really dense or not, for example, whether you are completely in the middle of it or in an area where branches and leaves are less thick.

Again, no rules can allow for all of this, but a clever player immersing himself in the world will make a good narrative out of it.

You mention narrative, but ironically enough, your statements in the previous paragraph about "imagining yourself in the situation" and the precise details of the bush and your attack, are very simulationist. (Note: I don't mean narrativist vs simulationist in the precise terms of GNS theory (which I'm not big on), just as lowercase generic concepts.)

 

[guachi]

The game allows someone to use the Help Action to grant Advantage in combat. Doesn't matter that the enemy can see the person granted Advantage. The rule leaves open exactly how such Advantage is granted.

If the game allows such Advantage to be granted, no die roll necessary, I'm okay with a rogue trying to hide in a place that, even if unseen, the enemy knows the general whereabouts of the rogue. Grant disadvantage on the roll or advantage to passive perception if it seems reasonable. But outright saying 'no'? I'm not willing to go that far.