Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Adjudicating "bursting in"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6865057" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>D&D doesn't exactly have fine-grained attention rules, but it seems reasonable to say that in the time it takes a halfling to scurry 5 ft., a guard can reasonably turn its head to look in that direction (and thus a reasonable assumption that the guard is generally peeking). It's a simplification, but a reasonable one, I feel, especially when you allow actions to manipulate that (ie, "I make a Sleight of Hand check to feint and draw his attention away from the barrel" is AWESOME in my book!) </p><p></p><p>One interesting point of comparison might be the petrifying gaze of a basilisk or a medusa - "averting your eyes" here is something you need to explicitly declare, and something that means you can't see the basilisk/medusa. The default assumption is "if you see each other, you lock gazes." Even if you're fighting some skeletons a few feet away, you're not considered to be "averting your eyes" from these creatures unless you specify that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or he could just kick the barrel backwards and see what scurries out. IMC, I'd probably rule that this was essentially destroying cover - attack the object, deal damage, and if the barrel breaks, you see what is behind it (and if you have more attacks, you can attack whatever is there). Might not even HAVE TO destroy it (use an attack to "grapple" the barrel and then chuck it away, same ultimate effect). </p><p></p><p>If the guard was going to treat the barrel as an immovable object, I'd say he'd need to use his action to make a Perception check to see if he can beat your last Stealth roll. If he wins, he can't see you (the barrel's in the way still), but he knows you're back there. If he loses, all he knows is that he last saw you run back there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, that'd be fine. The rogue would need to keep using the Hide action (and re-rolling Stealth every turn), but he could do that as often as he wanted if he stayed in the same place (and, as a rogue, Cunning Action means that he could do it as a bonus action and use his normal action to ranged attack or even melee attack something next to the barrel - getting advantage on the roll, and thus sneak attack damage to boot, or alternately using his normal action to make the distraction - throwing a pebble using Sleight of Hand - that allows him to move without being seen). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think your ruling is fair, though it actually seems a bit harsher than my ruling on the stealth-er! "You can do it but with Disadvantage" is a much bigger failure chance than "You know you can't do it unless you or someone else makes a distraction!" </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The goal with my ruling is to make the choice of Stealth an <strong>interesting decision</strong>. Part of what that means is that I want a rogue player <em>paying attention to where cover and concealment are</em>, and using those as an actual sneaking person would - knowing that movement into a place where you can be seen means breaking stealth. So then it becomes a question of "Okay, <em>how can I not be seen</em> in this open space?" and that becomes an interesting use of tactics and strategy that depend on the environment and party synergy to pull off. </p><p></p><p>My ruling only comes up if you're moving between points of cover (or maybe out from behind cover to stab a chump), and in that case, it means you're seen as you move between them unless you somehow distract the enemy. This lets you do the <em>Last of Us</em> thing of hucking a bottle across the room to get their attention off of you (Sleight of Hand vs. Perception) if you're a rogue, or gets your party involved (Deception vs. Insight to get the enemy's attention for a few moments), or means spending resources on <em>darkness</em> or <em>invisibility</em> and all of those sound like more interesting decision points to me than "you just do it" is. "You might do it with Disadvantage" doesn't encourage interacting with the world's particulars much, either. </p><p></p><p>Which isn't to say it's bad or unfair, it just doesn't make the particular details of the scene quite as relevant, and I like it when a player/party has to be creative in the moment! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6865057, member: 2067"] D&D doesn't exactly have fine-grained attention rules, but it seems reasonable to say that in the time it takes a halfling to scurry 5 ft., a guard can reasonably turn its head to look in that direction (and thus a reasonable assumption that the guard is generally peeking). It's a simplification, but a reasonable one, I feel, especially when you allow actions to manipulate that (ie, "I make a Sleight of Hand check to feint and draw his attention away from the barrel" is AWESOME in my book!) One interesting point of comparison might be the petrifying gaze of a basilisk or a medusa - "averting your eyes" here is something you need to explicitly declare, and something that means you can't see the basilisk/medusa. The default assumption is "if you see each other, you lock gazes." Even if you're fighting some skeletons a few feet away, you're not considered to be "averting your eyes" from these creatures unless you specify that. Or he could just kick the barrel backwards and see what scurries out. IMC, I'd probably rule that this was essentially destroying cover - attack the object, deal damage, and if the barrel breaks, you see what is behind it (and if you have more attacks, you can attack whatever is there). Might not even HAVE TO destroy it (use an attack to "grapple" the barrel and then chuck it away, same ultimate effect). If the guard was going to treat the barrel as an immovable object, I'd say he'd need to use his action to make a Perception check to see if he can beat your last Stealth roll. If he wins, he can't see you (the barrel's in the way still), but he knows you're back there. If he loses, all he knows is that he last saw you run back there. Yeah, that'd be fine. The rogue would need to keep using the Hide action (and re-rolling Stealth every turn), but he could do that as often as he wanted if he stayed in the same place (and, as a rogue, Cunning Action means that he could do it as a bonus action and use his normal action to ranged attack or even melee attack something next to the barrel - getting advantage on the roll, and thus sneak attack damage to boot, or alternately using his normal action to make the distraction - throwing a pebble using Sleight of Hand - that allows him to move without being seen). I think your ruling is fair, though it actually seems a bit harsher than my ruling on the stealth-er! "You can do it but with Disadvantage" is a much bigger failure chance than "You know you can't do it unless you or someone else makes a distraction!" The goal with my ruling is to make the choice of Stealth an [B]interesting decision[/B]. Part of what that means is that I want a rogue player [I]paying attention to where cover and concealment are[/I], and using those as an actual sneaking person would - knowing that movement into a place where you can be seen means breaking stealth. So then it becomes a question of "Okay, [I]how can I not be seen[/I] in this open space?" and that becomes an interesting use of tactics and strategy that depend on the environment and party synergy to pull off. My ruling only comes up if you're moving between points of cover (or maybe out from behind cover to stab a chump), and in that case, it means you're seen as you move between them unless you somehow distract the enemy. This lets you do the [I]Last of Us[/I] thing of hucking a bottle across the room to get their attention off of you (Sleight of Hand vs. Perception) if you're a rogue, or gets your party involved (Deception vs. Insight to get the enemy's attention for a few moments), or means spending resources on [I]darkness[/I] or [I]invisibility[/I] and all of those sound like more interesting decision points to me than "you just do it" is. "You might do it with Disadvantage" doesn't encourage interacting with the world's particulars much, either. Which isn't to say it's bad or unfair, it just doesn't make the particular details of the scene quite as relevant, and I like it when a player/party has to be creative in the moment! :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Adjudicating "bursting in"
Top