D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[Vic Ferrari]

Allowing flexibility and a bit of vagueness in the rules in no excuse for bad rules.

I do not find 5th Ed's rules vague at all, not sure what the deal is on that one.

 

[Hussar]

I do not find 5th Ed's rules vague at all, not sure what the deal is on that one.

Explain how Sneaking works and get everyone to agree with you, and then we'll talk. There's all sorts of vague rules in 5e, that's the whole point of the idea of Rulings not Rules.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

Explain how Sneaking works and get everyone to agree with you, and then we'll talk. There's all sorts of vague rules in 5e, that's the whole point of the idea of Rulings not Rules.

The explaining is in the text, really, seems so apparent, maybe some are for problems due to bitterness, what-have-you.

 

[billd91]

For me, this is a huge ask. There are other RPGs that don't impose this level of detailed technical management on the GM, and I don't see it as a virtue of D&D that it does so (if it does).

Maybe not all of them, but most of the ones I'm familiar with do. Call of Cthulhu, Mutants and Masterminds, Traveller, GURPS, Champions, Villains and Vigilantes, Runequest, Rolemaster... basically any RPG with a variety of methods of handling character actions and/or variability in character development is going to impose a lot of technical management on a GM to enable a game to be as successful as it can be with his players.

 

[Sadrik]

I'm not trying to be on any 'high horse'; I'm simply stating that non-specific/exact wording is a GOOD thing, and I'm pleased as punch that 5e is written that way.

I believe you are wrong on this. Poor, unclear, vague, and rules that require extrapolation take time to adjudicate are not a good thing. I think I understand your overarching sentiment though which is DMs should feel like they have latitude to adjudicate things before the RAW warriors step in and say no it actually says this in the rules.

I am all for changing the rules (stating this again) with a consistent application of those changes. For instance, if you feel sneaking should operate a certain way contrary to how the book operates (or is trying to operate) I want to know how you intend to make stealth work in your game prior to me selecting a character who relies on stealth. I advocate writing down house rules and on the fly rules interpretations in a House Rules Book for the group for consistencies sake. If this has to happen all the time then I say the non-specific/exact wording has become a detriment to the flow of the game.

Feel free to play any way you like, but don't blame the rules for your lack of being able to min/max/power-build a character and "get away with it by pointing to specificity worded rules". That's not in the spriit of 5e from what I can see. If you want to min/max your guy, do so with the aid of your DM. That is how the game is written...massive input from the DM. Maybe think of the rules as an extension of the DM...and not the DM being an extension of the rules (if that makes any sense).

This is a non-issue for this discussion. Min/maxing does not equate poorly written rules. Certain combinations are clearly written and there is no debate on how they work. They are part of the rules. Other than they may be too powerful when coupled together there is no debate. This is something that occurs in any rules set. You may not like it but this has nothing to do with poorly written or vaguely written or unclearly written or require unintended adjudication from the DM type of rules.

 

[Dausuul]

The explaining is in the text, really, seems so apparent, maybe some are for problems due to bitterness, what-have-you.

The meaning of the stealth rules is perfectly obvious. The problem is that it means one perfectly obvious thing when I read it, and a different perfectly obvious thing when someone else reads it.

Case in point: Wild elves have the special ability to hide when lightly obscured by natural phenomena (fog, foliage, etc.). Light obscurement imposes disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight. Does this mean you have disadvantage to detect a wild elf that is hiding in light mist?

To me, the answer is clearly no: Perception versus Stealth normally operates on the assumption that you can't see the stealthy creature at all, so this is not a check relying on sight. To others, however, it's just as clearly yes. This is not a corner case, either--it's going to come up literally every time the wild elf uses that ability.

Take another case: A rogue is hiding behind a bush, having made a successful Stealth check. She wants to move through the shadows to another bush. The area between the bushes is dimly lit (lightly obscured). If she were just standing between the bushes, she couldn't hide there, since she's visible; but she's already successfully hidden. Does she lose that state as soon as she leaves the first bush? Do hidden creatures have to maintain eligibility to hide every instant, or is the "hidden" state something that has a high barrier to entry but a lower threshold to maintain once you succeed in hiding?

I say that barring unusual circumstances, you have to be eligible to hide every instant. Others say you can stay hidden even if you no longer meet the requirements to become hidden.

 

[kenmarable]

Regardless, the point is, D&D has always been a platform on which to build fun experiences and the people I play with have always understood that, so there's never really been any need for argument over 'rules'.

I would posit that if you find yourself in that situation, it might have more to do with the maturity level of the people you play with, than any issues with the rules themselves...

This has generally been my experience. Arguments about rules and break downs of trust are people problems that need people solutions, not different rules. If everyone there is interested in having fun and letting everyone else have fun, too, then these things are usually pretty quick to get settled one way or another.

For example, I'm teaching one of my son's friends how to DM. Told him the DM's primary job is to help make sure everyone at the table is having fun, yourself included. That trumps everything. For players, I usually state it that they are there to have fun and not get in the way of anyone else's fun - player or DM. Those are the only rules that are firm. Everything else serves those rules.

So for me, RAI is less "Rules as Intended" and more "Rules as Impactful"

Exactly.

I really don't care about Rules as Intended. The designers' intents might be informative to consider as another opinion, but I give it even less weight than Rules as Written - silly situations and all.

Personally, just to make it clear what the point of even playing the game is, I prefer RAMF - Rules as Most Fun. If something is not clear, what would be the most fun right now, but also considering we will hopefully be gaming together for years to come?

Several times we have come across a situation of "I'm not sure that would work out well as a permanent interpretation, but right now that would be awesome." So I go ahead and admit that and run with it. Then afterwards, we take the time to come up with more long term interpretation that we can all agree to. Players seem to be ok with that. Yes, it can be entirely inconsistent, but I am open and clear on why it is inconsistent (right now, to keep the fun going, we will interpret it one way, but having that be the permanent interpretation might lead to less fun down the road if it's overpowered compared to other players).

Being flexible and focusing on the fun for everyone really helps to build a culture within the group that is cool with that. We get to the point where the only time we open a book during play for a rule check is piddly stuff like "Was that a 30' effect or 5'/level and I forgot to update it?" quick things like that someone can easily do without interrupting anyone else.

Everything else is ruled based on what keeps the fun going now and flagged to discuss later to decide what would be the most fun for all long term.

So RAMF all that way!

 

[Vic Ferrari]

The meaning of the stealth rules is perfectly obvious. The problem is that it means one perfectly obvious thing when I read it, and a different perfectly obvious thing when someone else reads it.

Case in point: Wild elves have the special ability to hide when lightly obscured by natural phenomena (fog, foliage, etc.). Light obscurement imposes disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight. Does this mean you have disadvantage to detect a wild elf that is hiding in light mist?

To me, the answer is clearly no: Perception versus Stealth normally operates on the assumption that you can't see the stealthy creature at all, so this is not a check relying on sight. To others, however, it's just as clearly yes. This is not a corner case, either--it's going to come up literally every time the wild elf uses that ability.

Take another case: A rogue is hiding behind a bush, having made a successful Stealth check. She wants to move through the shadows to another bush. The area between the bushes is dimly lit (lightly obscured). If she were just standing between the bushes, she couldn't hide there, since she's visible; but she's already successfully hidden. Does she lose that state as soon as she leaves the first bush? Do hidden creatures have to maintain eligibility to hide every instant, or is the "hidden" state something that has a high barrier to entry but a lower threshold to maintain once you succeed in hiding?

I say that barring unusual circumstances, you have to be eligible to hide every instant. Others say you can stay hidden even if you no longer meet the requirements to become hidden.

If you have heavy obscurement, you can hide, otherwise, without an exception, you can't.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The meaning of the stealth rules is perfectly obvious. The problem is that it means one perfectly obvious thing when I read it, and a different perfectly obvious thing when someone else reads it.

Case in point: Wild elves have the special ability to hide when lightly obscured by natural phenomena (fog, foliage, etc.). Light obscurement imposes disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on sight. Does this mean you have disadvantage to detect a wild elf that is hiding in light mist?

To me, the answer is clearly no: Perception versus Stealth normally operates on the assumption that you can't see the stealthy creature at all, so this is not a check relying on sight. To others, however, it's just as clearly yes. This is not a corner case, either--it's going to come up literally every time the wild elf uses that ability.

Take another case: A rogue is hiding behind a bush, having made a successful Stealth check. She wants to move through the shadows to another bush. The area between the bushes is dimly lit (lightly obscured). If she were just standing between the bushes, she couldn't hide there, since she's visible; but she's already successfully hidden. Does she lose that state as soon as she leaves the first bush? Do hidden creatures have to maintain eligibility to hide every instant, or is the "hidden" state something that has a high barrier to entry but a lower threshold to maintain once you succeed in hiding?

I say that barring unusual circumstances, you have to be eligible to hide every instant. Others say you can stay hidden even if you no longer meet the requirements to become hidden.

All of the confusion on this issue stems from the fact that the 5E rules strictly define hidden as being unseen rather than being unperceived.

A creature can be quite aware of the presence and location of a hidden character yet the character can still hide from it so long as the character remains unseen.

What of creatures with blindsight? Are they attacked with perpetual advantage by anything because not being able to see is their normal state? Such creatures would never have survived if their other senses were not keen enough to alert them to danger.

I think that if the definition of hidden becomes unperceived rather than unseen so much of this mess goes away.

 

[Dausuul]

All of the confusion on this issue stems from the fact that the 5E rules strictly define hidden as being unseen rather than being unperceived.

But they don't! They quite specifically do not. If you are unseen, you only have the potential to become hidden. You still have to make a Stealth check. It is possible to be unseen--even invisible--yet not hidden.

This is why I think the 5E Stealth rules are unclear...

If you have heavy obscurement, you can hide, otherwise, without an exception, you can't.

The question is not "When can you hide?" but "Are the requirements for hiding (transitioning from un-hidden to hidden) different from the requirements for staying hidden?" Since I think the answer is, "No, they are not different," I'm not going to try and argue the contrary position. But there are people who do argue the contrary, and so far as I can tell they're quite sincere about it based on their reading of the rules. Same thing with the wild elf question, which you didn't address.