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

[Lyxen]

Good, because I find your overly simulationist views about stealth and hiding completely against what the 5e designers envisioned for the game.

Then please enlighten us about what you think the designers envisioned for the game in terms of stealth. I just hope that it's not about applying the RAW and expecting it to be the tables of law, because unfortunately, this has been debunked a long time ago.

As for me, I'm perfectly happy with some words from the devs themselves which I think describe really well what we are doing in terms of stealth:

• To state it upfront is we very intentionally in 5th edition have put stealth in the domain of the DM.
• This more than almost any other part of the game, is going to rely on the Dungeon Master.
• Which can mean there are cases where the DM might decide no rolls are even necessary.
• That the DM is role playing the monsters just like players are all playing their characters, and so in addition to using whatever is in a monster stack block, DMS are often making choices about what a monster does that are not based on numbers in a stack block. It's based on just the DM sense of what would this particular creature would act like.
• And actually sort of pulling back the curtain a little bit. I had a far more complex version of the stealth rules written in the lead up to 5th edition, and I gutted them for the simple rules we have now because we decided they were just too complex. They were trying to account for all of these corner cases and this is this is a case where we didn't want. Corner cases making the simple thing no longer simple. And what I mean by that is. While we like to be clear and we like to give as many tools to our players in DMS as possible, we never want to go down the road. Where in the process of accounting for corner cases we've made the non corner case a drag. We want to make sure the thing you're doing most of the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Ovinomancer : isn’t it hilarious how the same crowd that claims we use the “ignoring the dice” approach because we expect a declaration of goal and approach and determine if a roll is called for based on that declaration are now accusing us of using the “roll with it” approach because we don’t change the rules to suit our preconceived narratives?

 

[Nefermandias]

Huh. Here I thought what the designers envisioned was that "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

So how I run the game might be different than you or anyone else. But as long as everyone at the table is having fun, why the **** do you care?

I don't care, really. And you are right about the primary goal of the game being everyone having fun.

On the other hand, just because the DM has the power to adjucate any action as he sees fit, we can't pretend the rules are not there.

The rules makes it completely obvious that a creature should be able to hide in combat and get advantage on it's first attack from a hiding position for being unseen. It's unbelievable that people are arguing about that for almost 50 pages in this thread.

 

[Umbran]

And still, my answer shut you up. Good.

Mod Note:
If you think shutting people up is good, you seem to have missed the point of a discussion board.

We're going to need you to be several notches more respectful to your fellow posters, please and thanks.

 

[Umbran]

isn’t it hilarious...

Mod Note:

What fails to be hilarious is you openly mocking other posters in public. This isn't acceptable.

Be better.

 

[Oofta]

The rules on line of sight are not as clear in 5E as they were in some previous editions, therefore it is up to the DM to make judgement calls. I agree that there are times when they can attack while not seen. A rogue with a ring of invisibility would attack with advantage against most creatures most of the time is one example. If I'm DM, the first time you attack from hidden from a specific position is another.

Several things can happen so that you are no longer hidden, whether that's making a loud noise, an enemy moving to a position where they can clearly see you, to any other number of things. Whether "peeking from behind a column, taking aim and firing" more than once qualifies meaning that you are no longer hidden is not clarified anywhere in the rules. The closest rule we have is the text "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature". If the DM might allow you to stay hidden while approaching, they may allow you to stay hidden while peeking.

It's always up to the DM to decide if hiding (and it's corollary staying hidden) is possible. So all this argument about what's "RAW" or not is pointless. Are the people in your game having fun? If yes, then it's all good.

That's my story, I'm sticking to it. Feel free to disagree or rule differently. The scenario of attacking multiple times from the same location is not explicitly covered by the rules, therefore it's up to the DM. I don't care how much people claim to know the one true rule that in the darkness binds them.

But this argument never goes anywhere and it's been on spin cycle for a few pages.

 

[Charlaquin]

My bad, then and my apologies, but PCs/NPCs (not the players, once again) with goldfish memories who can't remember that they were just shot for 36 damage from hiding and allow this to occur round after round, from the same exact place, and do nothing about it are dolts/dummies.

Who said they can’t remember where they were attacked from and allow it to occur round after round and do nothing about it? If you know the rogue keeps hiding behind the pillar, just walk around the pillar and put your sword through his gut! But when he is behind the pillar and sufficient quiet and varying the timing and height of his attacks (i.e. passed his Stealth check vs. your passive Perception), it’s going to be harder to avoid being hit by his arrow than if he were just standing out in the open.

It says nothing about the mental capacity of the players, but it does say something about the way those PCs/NPCs are played in terms of role.

It only says that based on your assumptions of what’s happening in the fiction. Some of us have a different set of assumptions, which allow a rogue hiding in the same spot to make sense and not make the creatures they’re hiding from look like idiots.

And just the fact that some people can read that it's possible from the rules for a rogue to do it, and insist that it's not only possible, but obviously the intent of the game because it's possible, and let their game be dictated entirely by rules instead of doing what exactly the same rules (admittedly in another section) tell them about also shows something about the tone of the game.

Again, you’re assuming we’re all working from the same set of narrative assumptions. I agree that if you assume a successful hide check means your opponents have absolutely no idea where you could possibly be, then it would be stupid for you to be able to hide in the same spot more than once. However, since certain rules (like the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy) seem to indicate that it is possible to hide in the same spot more than once, I find the natural conclusion to be that that isn’t an accurate narrative assumption. So I’ve adjusted my understanding of what’s happening in the fiction to account for what the rules seem to be implying. The rogue who hides behind the pillar gets the benefit of being hidden (advantage on attack rolls and attack rolls against them have disadvantage), so that benefit must come from the opponent not being able to get a clear shot at the rogue or see and read the rogue’s attack telegraphs, rather than having no idea where the rogue could possibly be.

It's not worse or better as long as everyone is having fun, but again people should assume their choices and not feel prickly about them if they put them on display.

You should not make so many assumptions about the way other people play based on very little information.

 

[Mistwell]

It becomes even worse if you consider that fighter's at-will damage will actually outpace the rogue's once the fighter gets his third attack. Especially if you throw feats in the mix, since rogues doesn't benefit that much from feats.

I disagree but let's see your math?

 

[Nefermandias]

I disagree but let's see your math?

What? You disagree that a lvl 11 Battle Master with either GWF, CBE or PAM would easily outdamage a lvl 11 rogue?

 

[Oofta]

What? You disagree that a lvl 11 Battle Master with either GWF, CBE or PAM would easily outdamage a lvl 11 rogue?

At a specific level with a specific build under specific assumptions? You can "prove" just about anything. What @Mistwell was asking for was your math.

Besides, a fighter doesn't get 3 attacks until 13th level when most PCs never get that high according to the analysis we've been given.