Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8493105" data-attributes="member: 7032025">And that is an option just like all the other options in the game, when you add them up and compensate for everything optional, you have a different balance than the original intended one, where sneak attack was certainly intended to happen frequently, but certainly not advantage, as it is linked to too many other variables unrelated to the rogue specifically. And adding an option to incite advantage only goes to show that it was NOT the original intent, otherwise it would have been in the original set of rules.This is going nowhere, since my take is that the principle of the game, and stealth in particular, is that circumstances are infinite and extremely variable (it's an open game), hence rulings over rules, consistency of rulings is not an aim of 5e in its core design. The game intrinsically resists defining everything in advance and forever as, as the devs say &quot;it would make the game unplayable&quot; (and this has indeed been proven before).As a DM, I might decide that a certain guard is particularly inattentive and and that hiding twice in a row in a certain spot would possibly work, and that for another guard it would not work as well, because it's a roleplaying game where NPCs have their personality or distractions matter. Or that it works behind a certain crate and not behind a slightly smaller one somewhere else. Once more, this is not 4e where everything was cut up and dried initially in neat little squares and where visibility was determined exactly (&quot;An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&amp;D&quot;). Some people prefer this and it's fine, I don't and not only is it fine as well, but it's clearly the spirit in which 5e was written.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8493105, member: 7032025"] And that is an option just like all the other options in the game, when you add them up and compensate for everything optional, you have a different balance than the original intended one, where sneak attack was certainly intended to happen frequently, but certainly not advantage, as it is linked to too many other variables unrelated to the rogue specifically. And adding an option to incite advantage only goes to show that it was NOT the original intent, otherwise it would have been in the original set of rules. This is going nowhere, since my take is that the principle of the game, and stealth in particular, is that circumstances are infinite and extremely variable (it's an open game), hence rulings over rules, consistency of rulings is not an aim of 5e in its core design. The game intrinsically resists defining everything in advance and forever as, as the devs say "it would make the game unplayable" (and this has indeed been proven before). As a DM, I might decide that a certain guard is particularly inattentive and and that hiding twice in a row in a certain spot would possibly work, and that for another guard it would not work as well, because it's a roleplaying game where NPCs have their personality or distractions matter. Or that it works behind a certain crate and not behind a slightly smaller one somewhere else. Once more, this is not 4e where everything was cut up and dried initially in neat little squares and where visibility was determined exactly ("An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D"). Some people prefer this and it's fine, I don't and not only is it fine as well, but it's clearly the spirit in which 5e was written. [/QUOTE]

Verification