Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 6961693" data-attributes="member: 284">Bringing up your emotional state isn't a defense.   The rules don't care if your peeved.  Telling me that your feelings being hurt should affect whether or not a hypothetical rogue can hide doesn't exactly win me over. I didn't tell you what your character thinks.  I said what your character THINKS is irrelevant.   My character can be 100% certain that the guy over there wiggling his fingers and snorting bat guano isn't going to throw a ball of fire at me.  Doesn't change the fact that I'm about to eat 8d6 damage. My character can be 100% certain that the giant is going to swing a club at him with an overhand strike coming in at a 30 degree angle.  That 100% certainty doesn't mean I get to automatically dodge the blow, or that the giant has disadvantage on the attack.  Telling the DM that I'm gonna be peeved if the giant hits me even though I can see exactly what he's doing isn't going to change anything either.  (C'mon, the giant is slow as hell and my guy is nimble.  No way he's gonna just stand there and get hit!)Nope.  You said it yourself - you watched them go into hiding.  After that you no longer have eyes on them (if they made a successful stealth check vs. your perception).  That's what hidden means.  You can't watch them as they make their attack, you just know where they were before you lost sight of them.    The rest of your argument is irrelevant.  Your character may know they ducked behind a tree, but if they have sufficient cover or obscurement to make a hide check (DM's call unless the character has an ability that specifically calls it out - wood elves in natural terrain, lightfoot halflings hiding behind a medium creature, etc), then your character can't seem them after that.  Your character doesn't know if they are going to attack from the left side of the tree or the right side of the tree, or if they managed to climb up the tree and are going to attack from above, or if they are ducking down and are going to hamstring your character.   Because they are hidden from your character, even though your character is 100 % certain that they know the rogues exact position without being able to see them.  If the DM rule's that the tree is too narrow or too short for the rogue to hide behind, then they don't get to make a stealth roll - they were never able to break line of sight with your character, no matter how they contorted or angled their body behind the tree.  Also consider - this generally assumes the rogue is using stealth in combat - there are multiple hostiles moving around, and your attention is divided between watching for attacks and looking for openings to make your own attack.  It's much easier to duck out of sight for a few seconds in the chaos of combat.    Outside of combat it's reasonable to make it harder to hide while observed - you saw him duck behind that tree and there aren't any other distractions, the DM may give you advantage on your Perception check (or +5 to your passive perception).  Or allow an Investigate check instead (you are using the clues of him ducking behind the tree and there being no other trees nearby to come to a conclusion). It's a game.  It mainly models an abstract form of fantasy combat.  An angry man standing next to me can give the rogue advantage to attack me without any stealth rolls required - or any skill rolls at all.  (If the angry man is a wolf barbarian.) Stealth is also modeled abstractly, and somewhat poorly, but it's what we have to work with.    If you are the DM it's your call as to how you want to handle the specifics.</blockquote>

Verification