Extreme self-preservation

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Yes*, until you revealed that you imposed disadvantage if the rogue popped out of the same place twice, in which case they have to roll 2d20. But more importantly, this means you differentiate the same case that @Oofta does, which makes me wonder why you think what he does is so vastly different than what you do that you must inquire repeatedly about his motivation.

By the way, I thought your initial point about looking closely at what one is trying to accomplish with certain kinds of rulings was generally a good one. It just seemed odd that no answer from @Oofta seemed to satisfy you.

For myself, although neither of the rogue PCs my players have ever tried hiding very often (they seem to prefer running up and stabbing things), I would be strongly inclined to not grant repeated hiding in the same place maximum efficacy in most situations. I think it's a close call between imposing disadvantage and just saying it doesn't work. As to why, it is partly a matter of verisimilitude and partly a matter of it seeming like button-mashing if the rogue does the same thing every. single. round.

That said, it does occur to me that I would probably just let it work if the player were a young kid or very new. So not strictly neutral arbitration I guess. Oh, well.

* By the way, I hope you do not think that anyone meant to imply that you did not require reasonable environmental conditions and using them to hide. (That is, literally, just roll a d20.) That would be a serious misunderstanding of the conversation.
[MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION], below is the exchange. Oofta's original scene has him clearly stating the rogue cannot hide at all, much kess a second time. This was the disagreement, although I grant you Oofta has tried to redefine it recently to the advantage thing, perhaps forgetting that people can just scroll back and re-read?

The second exchange is Oofta directly claiming that just rolling a d20 is sufficient in my games. Again, he's done a wonderful job obfuscating this, but, again, we can scroll back up. If his actual argument was really about second time sane place arguing, we'd have a different thread.

But, be my guest, ask [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] yourself if he'd allow the rogue in his scene to hide at the corner.

Scene: fighter goes 20 feet down a well lit 10 foot wide hallway and engages the guard. The rogue is behind the fighter hiding around the corner. There is no way for the rogue to see the fight, or to know when to lean around the corner to fire a shot.

The guard is distracted enough by the fighter that the rogue gets sneak attack damage.

Is the guard so distracted that he won't clearly see someone stepping around the corner to fire at him? Or to run the 20 feet to stab him?

I would say no. Could I change the scene? I guess, but I don't think it makes sense in this case for the rest of the narrative and I don't see a reason to change that narrative to give one PC in the group advantage.

I don't bend over backwards to reward or punish any type of play. Red dragons aren't suddenly going to become vulnerable to fire because the wizard takes all fire based spells any more than a rogue will be able to hide every round in every environment. I set up scenes that make sense to the story and allow a fair amount of creativity when taking advantage of those scenes. But ultimately the scenes (and the narrative ) are set up because they make sense in the world I'm constructing.


Like hiding?


By doing something more than rolling a D20? In my campaign, yes. It's perfectly okay to have the bar set that low in your campaign, just don't expect everyone else to agree with you.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION],
Was it so hard to actually tell someone specifically what you were upset about? Like I had asked you to do multiple times? This is similar to how you would keep pestering me about my answer ... nothing I said seemed to "explain" it to you.

But, once again I meant no offense. I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I skipped over some details I didn't mean to.

The thing is, I have DMed for people who thought their halfling could attack from behind the fighter with advantage. I've also seen people say that because the rogue is hidden around a corner they could "lean out" to attack with advantage. In both these cases they expected that the rogue would get advantage every round every time with a simple D20 roll.

There's nothing wrong with running the game that way, it's just not the way I run the game. It sounds like you're a little more liberal than I am, which also perfectly fine.

As far as being able to get advantage the first time, it's really dependent on the scene and something I probably was not completely clear on. Basically, it's a judgement call. Someone might be able to step out and fire, they're not going to be able to step out and move down the all. But even the stepping out bit is iffy. It depends. A single fighter attacking multiple guards? Multiple melee folks attacking the same guard from different directions? Is the hallway in the crystal castle with crisp white walls everywhere or a more typical castle with barrels in the hall, tapestries on fire from the fireball the mage just cast, dogs fleeing for their lives? How much clutter and chaos is there?

In any case, instead of just vague attacks and questions you could just ask for specific clarifications.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION],
Was it so hard to actually tell someone specifically what you were upset about? Like I had asked you to do multiple times? This is similar to how you would keep pestering me about my answer ... nothing I said seemed to "explain" it to you.

But, once again I meant no offense. I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I skipped over some details I didn't mean to.

The thing is, I have DMed for people who thought their halfling could attack from behind the fighter with advantage. I've also seen people say that because the rogue is hidden around a corner they could "lean out" to attack with advantage. In both these cases they expected that the rogue would get advantage every round every time with a simple D20 roll.

There's nothing wrong with running the game that way, it's just not the way I run the game. It sounds like you're a little more liberal than I am, which also perfectly fine.

As far as being able to get advantage the first time, it's really dependent on the scene and something I probably was not completely clear on. Basically, it's a judgement call. Someone might be able to step out and fire, they're not going to be able to step out and move down the all. But even the stepping out bit is iffy. It depends. A single fighter attacking multiple guards? Multiple melee folks attacking the same guard from different directions? Is the hallway in the crystal castle with crisp white walls everywhere or a more typical castle with barrels in the hall, tapestries on fire from the fireball the mage just cast, dogs fleeing for their lives? How much clutter and chaos is there?

In any case, instead of just vague attacks and questions you could just ask for specific clarifications.
Hilarious.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I give up. So much for trying to not get into pissing contests. You've invented a feud for some reason that I don't comprehend. Nothing I say will ever satisfy you.

Have a good one.
"I apologize for misrepresenting your post and then blaming you for it," would be an excellent start.

You can continue to pretend I haven't been explicit about this multiple times or that my real problem is second time hiding all you want, but that's on you, not me.

Let's not forget that I was honoring your wishes to halt our conversation when you decided to respond sarcastically with a mistepresentation of my play. You trying to pin the bad behavior on me here is really funny to me. We can all just scroll up.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
"I apologize for misrepresenting your post and then blaming you for it," would be an excellent start.

You can continue to pretend I haven't been explicit about this multiple times or that my real problem is second time hiding all you want, but that's on you, not me.

Let's not forget that I was honoring your wishes to halt our conversation when you decided to respond sarcastically with a mistepresentation of my play. You trying to pin the bad behavior on me here is really funny to me. We can all just scroll up.
I spent the time to go back through dozens of posts to find the one where I had missed your explanation buried in a 300 word paragraph. I admitted my error and apologized.

I bent over backwards, went much, much further than most people would have. Give it a rest.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
"I apologize for misrepresenting your post and then blaming you for it," would be an excellent start.

You can continue to pretend I haven't been explicit about this multiple times or that my real problem is second time hiding all you want, but that's on you, not me.

Let's not forget that I was honoring your wishes to halt our conversation when you decided to respond sarcastically with a mistepresentation of my play. You trying to pin the bad behavior on me here is really funny to me. We can all just scroll up.
... are you mad he's not willing to have a flame war? Fire is so 2000s. Let it go, let it go!
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
... are you mad he's not willing to have a flame war? Fire is so 2000s. Let it go, let it go!
Yeah, my mistake for trying to turn over a new leaf because apparently I didn't apologize in the correct fasion. After a while I should just listen to Queen Elsa and let it go.

Umm ... I mean listen to Dr Somesmartperson about how to handle conflict. Because I'm not a 12 year old girl who likes Disney animated flicks. :blush:
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
... are you mad he's not willing to have a flame war? Fire is so 2000s. Let it go, let it go!
Yup, defending myself against lies about my posts is certainly like wanting to have a flame war.

I made my case, but you'll notice it's Oofta continuing to go on about it. My fault for defending myself, I guess, right?
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Yup, defending myself against lies about my posts is certainly like wanting to have a flame war.

I made my case, but you'll notice it's Oofta continuing to go on about it. My fault for defending myself, I guess, right?
Your honor, I would now like to present exhibit B
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Alright guys, lets just hug this out.
I would, but I think the sequence would go something like:

  1. I'd accidentally step on someone's toes without realizing it. I'm kind of a klutz sometimes.
  2. I'd then be accused of assault.
  3. Confused by this, I'd ask what I had done.
  4. I'd then be accused of a cover-up and lying about inflicting grievous bodily harm.
  5. Once again, I'd ask what I had done.
  6. A lawsuit is filed suing me for defamation of character.
  7. After reviewing video of the incident I would realize what I had done and apologize for it.
  8. The accuser just laughs at my "pitiful attempt at spin"
  9. Even more confused and thinking maybe I was just missing something ask once more for clarification.
  10. The only response I get is "stop calling me a liar" and the accuser walking off in a huff.

This of course is pure conjecture, any resemblance to thread interactions is purely coincidental.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I don't know about the walking off part. I fear that we may be stuck. This is our life now, debating in this thread until the thermal death of the universe.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I would, but I think the sequence would go something like:

  1. I'd accidentally step on someone's toes without realizing it. I'm kind of a klutz sometimes.
  2. I'd then be accused of assault.
  3. Confused by this, I'd ask what I had done.
  4. I'd then be accused of a cover-up and lying about inflicting grievous bodily harm.
  5. Once again, I'd ask what I had done.
  6. A lawsuit is filed suing me for defamation of character.
  7. After reviewing video of the incident I would realize what I had done and apologize for it.
  8. The accuser just laughs at my "pitiful attempt at spin"
  9. Even more confused and thinking maybe I was just missing something ask once more for clarification.
  10. The only response I get is "stop calling me a liar" and the accuser walking off in a huff.

This of course is pure conjecture, any resemblance to thread interactions is purely coincidental.
Exhibit C?
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Ranged rogue is fairly useless the exception being assassin with hand crossbow and the crossbow expert feat.

I had players who ran around doing f all. His wizard friend would use misty step and spam fire bolt a lot. The idiot thought dealing 5.5 damage or 11 damage was worth wasting daily slots on.

Best debuff is death.

These players are basically disruptive. At best it's annoying at the worst they get other players killed. Ended up booting them as they were the CN stereotype or chaotic stupid.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Ranged rogue is fairly useless the exception being assassin with hand crossbow and the crossbow expert feat.

I had players who ran around doing f all. His wizard friend would use misty step and spam fire bolt a lot. The idiot thought dealing 5.5 damage or 11 damage was worth wasting daily slots on.

Best debuff is death.

These players are basically disruptive. At best it's annoying at the worst they get other players killed. Ended up booting them as they were the CN stereotype or chaotic stupid.
Kitting is a valid tactic - even if you don't do much damage, if you drag foes away from the party...

But that isn't what you meant I imagine...
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member

Ladies and gentlemen,

Enough. The bickering ends now.

Really. Walk away. Stop responding to each other. Stop making passive-aggressive snipes at each other in responses to third parties.

And, for a few others, stop egging on the conflict.

You won't get another warning.
 

Advertisement

Top