D&D 5E Vs Vecna battle simulations.

[DND_Reborn]

Source?

Here's the link: Do the Monk's Ki empowered strikes function when inside an antimagic field? ...and Paladin smite?

Now, Improved Divine Smite could work... I can't see that more than Divine Smite (since it does use spell slots).

Ki-Empowered Strikes are more a gray area to me, but this is the best we have close to "RAW" as we can get.

 

[Greg Benage]

Hey, yeah, looks like the ruling “evolved.” The latest Sage Advice lists effects “fueled by spell slots.” Thanks!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hey, yeah, looks like the ruling “evolved.” The latest Sage Advice lists effects “fueled by spell slots.” Thanks!

No problem! It is always nice to review such things, find out the current "rulings" and decide to house-rule stuff anyway!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think any of that applies here - other than getting advantage. A rogue is absolutely balanced around getting sneak attack each round - not being able to hide or getting advantage every round. But if the rogue's companions aren't taking the hits to allow the rogue to get that sneak attack - or the monster is too sneaky or well positioned to allow the rogue to get that sneak attack - then the rogue doesn't get to sneak attack. Also, Vecna is a genius, so playing him like a chump who doesn't have object permenance seems weird.

Of course, I am all on board with a DM handwaving it because it sucks to lose your main damage output every turn.

You're not a "chump" if you can't figure out where a guy is who looks just like the background wall and can regularly have a hide check in the 30's.

I know some DMs like to play very hard-nosed with stealth (and I'm okay with some of that) but I don't agree here. I'm burning quite a few resources on it.

OTOH, I think punching a pillar is pure cheese and wouldn't allow it. I guess we all have lines drawn here an there.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're not a "chump" if you can't figure out where a guy is who looks just like the background wall and can regularly have a hide check in the 30's.

I know some DMs like to play very hard-nosed with stealth (and I'm okay with some of that) but I don't agree here. I'm burning quite a few resources on it.

OTOH, I think punching a pillar is pure cheese and wouldn't allow it. I guess we all have lines drawn here an there.

Especially because “hidden” doesn’t mean the enemy you’re hidden from forgot you exist. It means they can’t see you clearly and can’t hear you. Frankly, simply being behind a pillar and passing the check to remain silent should satisfy that, with or without the stone camouflage and the Skulker feat. Doesn’t stop an enemy who just watched you duck behind the pillar from moving to a position from which they can see you clearly when they have the opportunity to do so, just means you have advantage on your attack because they don’t know exactly when it’s coming or from how high or low or what side of the pillar. Anyone who has played any first person shooter should be able to understand this principle.

 

[Stalker0]

In terms of the "RAW" when it comes to hiding, no amount of high stealth keeps you hidden if the conditions of stealth are not met (aka total cover or heavy concealment). So yes as soon as Venca moves to a spot where the pillar is no longer providing total cover....you are visible, regardless of the stealth result.

This was a conscious design decision, as generally it is very easy for stealth focused characters to be nigh guaranteed stealth against most monsters. The counter is that negating the conditions for stealth auto removes it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In terms of the "RAW" when it comes to hiding, no amount of high stealth keeps you hidden if the conditions of stealth are not met (aka total cover or heavy concealment). So yes as soon as Venca moves to a spot where the pillar is no longer providing total cover....you are visible, regardless of the stealth result.

This was a conscious design decision, as generally it is very easy for stealth focused characters to be nigh guaranteed stealth against most monsters. The counter is that negating the conditions for stealth auto removes it.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is negating the conditions of stealth here. Of course, there has been whole long threads on it, and if those didn't reach a consensus, then I doubt we will here.

 

[Charlaquin]

In terms of the "RAW" when it comes to hiding, no amount of high stealth keeps you hidden if the conditions of stealth are not met (aka total cover or heavy concealment). So yes as soon as Venca moves to a spot where the pillar is no longer providing total cover....you are visible, regardless of the stealth result.

This was a conscious design decision, as generally it is very easy for stealth focused characters to be nigh guaranteed stealth against most monsters. The counter is that negating the conditions for stealth auto removes it.

I agree with you for the most part, but the rules don’t actually say anywhere that total cover or heavy obscuration (concealment isn’t a thing this edition) are requirements for hiding. The only requirement is that you can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly. Total cover or heavy obscuration would I think be pretty cut-and-dried cases of conditions that would constitute not being clearly visible. Half or three-quarters cover and light obscuration are more ambiguous cases. Personally, I prefer to rule that neither is sufficient for stealth unless you have a feature that makes it so - such as the Skulker feat, which explicitly allows you to hide when lightly obscured by dim light, or the lightfoot halfling’s Naturally Stealthy, which explicitly allows you to hide when covered by a Medium or larger creature.

However, to your broader point, yes, if circumstances change such that you can be seen clearly (such as if the creature moves to a position from which you are not appropriately covered or obscured), you are no longer hidden.

 

[DND_Reborn]

OTOH, I think punching a pillar is pure cheese and wouldn't allow it.

I'll blatantly admit it is pure cheese LOL BUT it is the fault of the monk's design and completely within RAW. I even wrote it up as Hjalman venting his frustration in hitting the pillar first, informing Vecna of what is coming. It is sort of showboating and psyching himself up for the flurry of blows, which oddly enough even landed a critical hit! He knows what he can do with flurry and it will stop Vecna, who cheesed him once before by teleporting away.

Now, what about this: what if Vecna had a minion next to him, and Hjalman hit the minion first, then used flurry of blows on Vecna. Would it have been cheese then? It is the same tactic, just lacking the minion...

As for the stealth...

In terms of the "RAW" when it comes to hiding, no amount of high stealth keeps you hidden if the conditions of stealth are not met (aka total cover or heavy concealment).

Every time Malek has made a stealth check he HAS had total cover, no LoS between him and Vecna. After trying to hide, he then moves out just enough (5 feet) to get Vecna in his sight and shoots him.

Now, we don't know what Malek's attack roll was the first round because we weren't told the numbers, but I know for his second sneak attack he hit AC 20, which hits Vecna (barely) even counting the half-cover I gave Vecna for still having the pillar partially in Malek's way. In the third round Malek hit AC 28, easily hitting this time.

So, yes, as soon as Malek stepped out enough to shoot, Vecna might have seen him, but since the stealth rolls beat his passive perception the attack had advantage either way. Again, JC has already ruled that when hidden you can move up to 5 feet, revealing yourself, and still have advantage if you attack immediately after moving. That's what I've been going with and it seems like @MonsterEnvy did as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just to inform everyone, and I wish I had realized this sooner:

Hjalman's first attack against the pillar wasn't even necessary. He could have grappled as his attack (which is NOT considered a hit btw in sage advice) and initiated his Flurry of Blows after the grapple. He could have done this in round 1 even.

Also, while researching all this, it seems the current ruling (although I found contradictory information...) is the entire Attack action (including the Extra Attack) would have to be complete prior to starting the Flurry of Blows, which is fine as he could grapple and then attempt to knock prone or something...

Ultimately, again, the situation remains the same. If no one runs Vecna's turn this morning, I guess I'll do it.