Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jaelis" data-source="post: 7348192" data-attributes="member: 60210">I'm happy with the 5e approach to stealth, except that I think they should have provided some guidelines and advice about it in the DMG.That said, I don't think the question of attacks was set up as a grey area. They took some trouble to spell out what an attack meant, I take that at face value. If you want to use your action every turn to make sure the rogue gets sneak attack, that is fine with me. (Of course you could do that anyway even if you weren't invisible.)--Actually, just to expound on that... I like the stealth rules because they say, in essence, &quot;This is really situational. Use your judgement to decide how it will work out in a given situation.&quot; That is fine, but you are using judgement based on your real-world ideas and experiences.Popping invisibility is nothing like that. There's no obvious reason invisibility should pop when you attack someone, so there's no basis for applying judgement. If they had said the spell ends when you commit a hostile act, then sure, you would have to take into account the situation and even the mindset of the player. We do have some basis for judging what a hostile act is. But that can get messy and I think they deliberately avoided it by just keying it to specific, well defined actions.If you don't like that and want to play that any hostile act ends the spell, that's cool with me (assuming of course your tell your players first). But if you ask me, that crosses the line from &quot;interpretation&quot; to &quot;house rule&quot; here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jaelis, post: 7348192, member: 60210"] I'm happy with the 5e approach to stealth, except that I think they should have provided some guidelines and advice about it in the DMG. That said, I don't think the question of attacks was set up as a grey area. They took some trouble to spell out what an attack meant, I take that at face value. If you want to use your action every turn to make sure the rogue gets sneak attack, that is fine with me. (Of course you could do that anyway even if you weren't invisible.) -- Actually, just to expound on that... I like the stealth rules because they say, in essence, "This is really situational. Use your judgement to decide how it will work out in a given situation." That is fine, but you are using judgement based on your real-world ideas and experiences. Popping invisibility is nothing like that. There's no obvious reason invisibility should pop when you attack someone, so there's no basis for applying judgement. If they had said the spell ends when you commit a hostile act, then sure, you would have to take into account the situation and even the mindset of the player. We do have some basis for judging what a hostile act is. But that can get messy and I think they deliberately avoided it by just keying it to specific, well defined actions. If you don't like that and want to play that any hostile act ends the spell, that's cool with me (assuming of course your tell your players first). But if you ask me, that crosses the line from "interpretation" to "house rule" here. [/QUOTE]

Verification