Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6415330" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.1a = Yes.1b & 1c = Irrelevant. The Rogue gets to actually make a Stealth roll because he's trying to hide in the bushes. Without bushes, he'd be standing in plain sight and the orc would see him, obviously. In this case, I'd rule that the "light obscurement" doesn't impose any disadvantage to the orc...it simply gives the rogue somewhere to hide in the first place. Now, add in a light fog/mist...now the rogue gets the light obscurement benefit (e.g., the orc has Disadvantage/-5 to his detection chances). Is this "as per the rules"? *shrug* Doesn't really matter does it? As long as I (the DM) am consistent in how I rule this, my game will run just fine. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />2a = Yes. He's now actively looking, not passively.2b = Nope. Hiding in the bushes actually gives the rogue a roll in the first place; ignore the whole "lightly obscured" rules as written for this because otherwise it would be silly and make no sense. Luckily, I'm human and can think "outside the box". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Not really...I'm just interpreting them differently. Nothing wrong with that, is there?  As I'm interpreting this situations "light obscurement" differently, these rules aren't going to apply as the are written, so...uh...  I guess whenever he has something to hide behind? I mean, if someone is trying to interpret semi-vague rules as strictly as possible, that person is going to be exceedingly frustrated. If a rule is "vague" then it needs to be treated that way; you can't treat it as "iron-clad" or a "yes/no". Pretty much all of 5e is written with this "DM/Player interpretation" rule style. The Stealth rules are, as Mearls said, written that way on purpose; that purpose being for individual DM's to decide the specifics simply because there are FAR to many variables to write rules that would work in every situation in a RPG. A DM can adapt to the situation...rules written on the printed page can not. It really is that simple.  Stop scratching your head about it. Think about how you want them to work in your game and implement them that way. If they don't work for you, change them until they do. This may be as simple as copy/pasting rules from some other d20 supplement/game that you DO like...or maybe you will need to write some stuff out yourself for your campaigns house rules.  I keep seeing threads about Stealth/Hiding, and, as I've said a million times before...stop thinking in 3.x/PF/4e terms. In those games, you had rules with pages of modifiers, with yes/no specifics, and then you had a bajillion exceptions that broke those "iron clad" rules/modifications in terms of spells, feats, class abilities, powers, etc. In short, there was a LOT of wasted time, effort and space trying to codify "stealth" rules and then find ways to break/ignore them. Why bother in the first place? IMHO, 5e's "vague" rules are infinitely better than having 5 pages of modifiers to a die roll and another 3 pages dedicated to exceptions. With 5e, the premiere rule is this: "If you're confused, ask your DM. If you're the DM and can't find something or something doesn't make sense, make it up". ^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification