D&D 5E Vs Vecna battle simulations.

[MonsterEnvy]

I will just say I don’t mind the hiding stuff.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

While our playstyles are quite similar and I agree with most things you post around here, I can't agree with this as presented. Especially the "don't know exactly when it's coming". By that logic, would you consider granting advantage to a bow shooter who draws and holds for a few seconds (or longer with a Readied action) to throw off the "expected" timing of the combat-aware target? Further, IMO, if an enemy spots someone - who has already hit them with an arrow and revealed their position - slipping behind a pillar, it should not be so shocking when that someone then comes out from one side or other of that same pillar to take another shot. That's really not enough, IMO, to grant a roll for Hiding to gain Advantage on the attack every turn in this decidedly un-videogame-like edition.

I guess it comes down to the fact that "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." In this scenario, IMO, 10' pillars that are 15-20' apart aren't going to automatically meet the circumstances every turn without some other compensating factors thrown into the mix.

 

[MarkB]

While our playstyles are quite similar and I agree with most things you post around here, I can't agree with this as presented. Especially the "don't know exactly when it's coming". By that logic, would you consider granting advantage to a bow shooter who draws and holds for a few seconds (or longer with a Readied action) to throw off the "expected" timing of the combat-aware target? Further, IMO, if an enemy spots someone - who has already hit them with an arrow and revealed their position - slipping behind a pillar, it should not be so shocking when that someone then comes out from one side or other of that same pillar to take another shot. That's really not enough, IMO, to grant a roll for Hiding to gain Advantage on the attack every turn in this decidedly un-videogame-like edition.

I guess it comes down to the fact that "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." In this scenario, IMO, 10' pillars that are 15-20' apart aren't going to automatically meet the circumstances every turn without some other compensating factors thrown into the mix.

One thing to bear in mind is that you really don't need to stick much of yourself out of cover to have a clean shot at somebody. All you really need to poke out is one eye and half your bow. So a shooter can quite easily still be in heavy cover while their target is out in the open from their perspective.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

While our playstyles are quite similar and I agree with most things you post around here, I can't agree with this as presented. Especially the "don't know exactly when it's coming". By that logic, would you consider granting advantage to a bow shooter who draws and holds for a few seconds (or longer with a Readied action) to throw off the "expected" timing of the combat-aware target?

No because they can watch it happen, so it doesn't matter when (in that case). But when you can't see the attacker, it's just an arrow suddenly coming from somewhere. It's not like you can't still duck (represented by a missed attack roll) it's just harder.

“You auto-hit the pillar. Now roll a DC 15 CON save. On a failure you break your hand and take damage equal to your martial arts die. On a success, your hand is fine but you take half damage. Oh, and broken hand = disadvantage on attacks with that hand.”

I've actually got no problem with a monk being able to damage a pillar with his hands. I just think it's cheesy why they're choosing to attack it in this case. Still, I've been swayed enough by the reason for it that I'd probably shrug and move on (as long as the tendency wasn't spammed by the monk player - though I'd probably roll my eyes and allow it if they decided that their "style" included hitting solid objects before hitting monsters. Then I'd expect them to occasionally "waste" an attack on a wall, or something. Silly, but at least it winds up part of the character's schtick.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Anyone going to run Vecna's turn or chime in on Vecna's options?

As I see it, he has two:

A. Try to escape the grapple (Action), stand and move away to use Bonus Action at least.
B. Attack with Afterthought twice against Hjalman, even though it is now a non-magical dagger.

 

[Charlaquin]

While our playstyles are quite similar and I agree with most things you post around here, I can't agree with this as presented. Especially the "don't know exactly when it's coming". By that logic, would you consider granting advantage to a bow shooter who draws and holds for a few seconds (or longer with a Readied action) to throw off the "expected" timing of the combat-aware target?

No because the target can see exactly when it’s happening, and again, where it’s happening.

Further, IMO, if an enemy spots someone - who has already hit them with an arrow and revealed their position - slipping behind a pillar, it should not be so shocking when that someone then comes out from one side or other of that same pillar to take another shot.

It isn’t shocking, the point is, you don’t know if the shot’s going to come from the left side or the right side. From high or low. In 3 seconds or in 5. None of this makes the attack impossible to defend against, it just makes it more difficult to do so, giving the attacker an -advantage-. Again, if you’ve ever played a first person shooter, (or paintball, if you want a non-video game example), you’ve probably experienced this. When your opponent is behind cover, it’s much more difficult to anticipate when they might take a shot at you or from where, even if you watched them go behind that cover.

That's really not enough, IMO, to grant a roll for Hiding to gain Advantage on the attack every turn in this decidedly un-videogame-like edition.

No rule suggests to me that it shouldn’t be, and several rules suggest that it should. A lightfoot halfling explicitly can attempt to hide when only covered by a medium or larger creature. There’s no way for me to square that being possible without it also being possible for other creatures to hide behind a pillar or tree or whatever that’s wide enough to grant them full cover. The existence of the Naturally Stealthy feature is, to me, a pretty undeniable indication that knowing an opponent must be behind a source of cover is not enough to deny them the opportunity to try to hide, otherwise the feature would be useless.

I guess it comes down to the fact that "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." In this scenario, IMO, 10' pillars that are 15-20' apart aren't going to automatically meet the circumstances every turn without some other compensating factors thrown into the mix.

I think you’re putting too much weight on the word “hide” in much the same way that many people put too much weight on words like “hit” and “damage.” If lightfoot halflings can become “hidden” behind a medium sized ally, there’s just no world where “hidden” means the enemy has no idea where you’ve gone. It must mean that because they currently can’t see or hear you, you have enough of an edge to constitute advantage on an attack roll, therefore I see no reason a character shouldn’t be able to get the same advantage from a pillar. Of course, doing so is basically only useful for rogues and goblins, since everyone else would have to use an action to become hidden, so they wouldn’t be able to attack before the opponent’s next turn, on which they can easily move to a position from which they can see you and attack you (without disadvantage since you are no longer hidden).

EDIT: Actually I guess Fighters could take advantage of it too, but that seems like a poor use of an Action Surge when you’d get more benefit from simply attacking twice.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No because the target can see exactly when it’s happening, and again, where it’s happening.

It isn’t shocking, the point is, you don’t know if the shot’s going to come from the left side or the right side. From high or low. In 3 seconds or in 5. None of this makes the attack impossible to defend against, it just makes it more difficult to do so, giving the attacker an -advantage-. Again, if you’ve ever played a first person shooter, you’ve probably experienced this. When your opponent is behind cover, it’s much more difficult to anticipate when they might take a shot at you or from where, even if you watched them go behind that cover.

No rule suggests to me that it shouldn’t be, and several rules suggest that it should. A lightfoot halfling explicitly can attempt to hide when only covered by a medium or larger creature. There’s no way for me to square that being possible without it also being possible for other creatures to hide behind a pillar or tree or whatever that’s wide enough to grant them full cover. The existence of the Naturally Stealthy feature is, to me, a pretty undeniable indication that knowing an opponent must be behind a source of cover is not enough to deny them the opportunity to try to hide, otherwise the feature would be useless.

I think you’re putting too much weight on the word “hide” in much the same way that many people put too much weight on words like “hit” and “damage.” If lightfoot halflings can become “hidden” behind a medium sized ally, there’s just no world where “hidden” means the enemy has no idea where you’ve gone. It must mean that because they currently can’t see or hear you, you have enough of an edge to constitute advantage on an attack roll, therefore I see no reason a character shouldn’t be able to get the same advantage from a pillar. Of course, doing so is basically only useful for rogues and goblins, since everyone else would have to use an action to become hidden, so they wouldn’t be able to attack before the opponent’s next turn, on which they can easily move to a position from which they can see you and attack you (without disadvantage since you are no longer hidden).

EDIT: Actually I guess Fighters could take advantage of it too, but that seems like a poor use of an Action Surge when you’d get more benefit from simply attacking twice.

If you would, make some rulings on this actual game play experience from my early days of DMing 5e:

Rogue is up on a 15' city wall hiding (quiet and still) behind the parapet as enemies approach the wall.

Rogue pops up, fires bow at enemy below, then declares that they will crouch down to hide behind parapet again.

Next round... repeat previous step (pops up, fires bow, declares they want to crouch to bonus-action hide).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you would, make some rulings on this actual game play experience from my early days of DMing 5e:

Rogue is up on a 15' city wall hiding (quiet and still) behind the parapet as enemies approach the wall.

Rogue pops up, fires bow at enemy below, then declares that they will crouch down to hide behind parapet again.

Next round... repeat previous step (pops up, fires bow, declares they want to crouch to bonus-action hide).

You remember that the hide roll can fail right? That would be the situation where the target anticipates when you're going to take the shot, and from where, even if they can't see you at the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you would, make some rulings on this actual game play experience from my early days of DMing 5e:

Rogue is up on a 15' city wall hiding (quiet and still) behind the parapet as enemies approach the wall.

Rogue pops up, fires bow at enemy below, then declares that they will crouch down to hide behind parapet again.

Next round... repeat previous step (pops up, fires bow, declares they want to crouch to bonus-action hide).

If the parapet is large enough to grant full cover, then yeah, I’d allow the Dexterity check to try to hide each round.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You remember that the hide roll can fail right? That would be the situation where the target anticipates when you're going to take the shot, and from where, even if they can't see you at the time.

Of course.

More to the actual point I'm trying to make: What differentiates the rogue crouching down behind the parapet after taking a bow shot from the wizard who is nearby doing the same thing after shooting a fire bolt? Why does the rogue, due to bonus-action "hiding" behind the parapet, get to have a another chance at advantage at their next bow shot but the wizard does not get that same chance at advantage on their next fire bolt?

The circumstances are the same. The enemy can clearly see both PCs duck behind cover after their respective attacks. Are we to assume the wizard is automatically noisily crouching and the rogue may or may not be?


Now, don't get me wrong. I'm pulling for Malek and the party here, just as I am a fan of the PCs at our table. I just wouldn't automatically grant a Hide roll to someone trying to Hide in the exact same spot each round without some other compensating factors thrown in. Clearly, others are ruling differently here and that's fine.