Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8038456">I had trouble getting my head around the OPs rules.&nbsp; It seems awfully...legal.&nbsp; In my group whoever is DMing interprets the situation as best he/she can, and we're all pretty ok with the result.&nbsp; I guess we each learn each DM's particular style, and try to accommodate it.But here's a general (slightly off-topic) question for everybody: I've seen comments from many people that suggest they let archers pop out of hiding and get advantage on their attack, but rule that you can't do the same thing with melee because you &quot;can be seen&quot; (at least in theory, if behind the target) and therefore you aren't attacking from Hidden.<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Isn't that really a matter of degree, though?&nbsp; The archer is unhidden for some amount of time, whereas the melee attacker is unhidden for a generally longer time.&nbsp; But...both have to become unhidden in order to actually attack.&nbsp; It seems like a totally arbitrary (and unsupported by RAW) ruling to give it to ranged but not melee.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is it really gonna break anything to allow the melee rogue to get advantage this way?&nbsp; It's not like the rogue can Disengage, Hide, and get a bonus attack as a repeatedly tactic every round.&nbsp; Even with swashbuckler or mobile you can still only do 2 of the 3.</li>
</ol></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 8038456"] I had trouble getting my head around the OPs rules. It seems awfully...legal. In my group whoever is DMing interprets the situation as best he/she can, and we're all pretty ok with the result. I guess we each learn each DM's particular style, and try to accommodate it. But here's a general (slightly off-topic) question for everybody: I've seen comments from many people that suggest they let archers pop out of hiding and get advantage on their attack, but rule that you can't do the same thing with melee because you "can be seen" (at least in theory, if behind the target) and therefore you aren't attacking from Hidden. [LIST=1] [*]Isn't that really a matter of degree, though? The archer is unhidden for some amount of time, whereas the melee attacker is unhidden for a generally longer time. But...both have to become unhidden in order to actually attack. It seems like a totally arbitrary (and unsupported by RAW) ruling to give it to ranged but not melee. [*]Is it really gonna break anything to allow the melee rogue to get advantage this way? It's not like the rogue can Disengage, Hide, and get a bonus attack as a repeatedly tactic every round. Even with swashbuckler or mobile you can still only do 2 of the 3. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification