Invisibility /stealth / hide with a rigid DM what can i do instead?

[Gardens & Goblins]

Did someone say ... FLOW CHART?!

View attachment 96839

THE HERO WE NEED

 

[Shiroiken]

I would have thought the best solution to be working with, not against, your DM.

Simply play a rogue with another DM, and play something non-stealthy with that DM. Like a kick-in-the-door Barbarian, perhaps?

Well yes, but we are past that point since characters are already made. As the OP noted, he would have played something different (with higher AC) had he known. You could always choose to get yourself killed and make a new character, but that feels bad. If the DM is open to the player making a new character (as opposed to slow suicide), they're probably somewhat open to working out the issue with stealth, which is really the optimal solution.

 

[MNblockhead]

There is not much to add to the advice already given. Talk it out with your DM.

But reading through all the responses, I wonder--don't any of you allow some heroic, cinematic cheese into my games when it comes to stealth.

I rarely say "no, there is no way you can stealth/hide." In my last campaign, one player played a gnome rogue assassin and somewhere in the mid levels there was a battle on these circular stairs and he wanted to attack and then use a cunning action to hide. Instead of saying, "oh come one, that's ridiculous." I just gave the baddies an advantage on their contested Wis (perception) role and I let him make a Dex (stealth) check. With high rolls aided by high proficiency bonuses. Of course, in situations like this, I like to make the players describe how and where they are hiding. So we have this gnome lying flat on lower stairs, rounding the corner above or below the center of the battle, hiding behind other players. It was two baddies against 6 players, so in the chaos of battle I can reason that it will be hard for them to keep their eyes on the gnome, but really, I just found the scene so cartoonishly silly, and it just seems right that a gnome rogue would get away with something like this. He got to shine and I got a chuckle.

I don't know why some DMs hate rogues. I saw this once at an Adventurer's League game. The DM seemed to be purposefully trying to make it imposible for the player to play his rogue as anything other than a fighter in light armor. Boo! Rogues are great. They may break your heart if you didn't plan your encounters for them, but it is made up for with picturing your little stabby gnome dancing among the shadows and dodging fireball damage.

To the objection of "that's ridiculous," the answer is "that's D&D!"

 

[CapnZapp]

Well yes, but we are past that point since characters are already made. As the OP noted, he would have played something different (with higher AC) had he known. You could always choose to get yourself killed and make a new character, but that feels bad. If the DM is open to the player making a new character (as opposed to slow suicide), they're probably somewhat open to working out the issue with stealth, which is really the optimal solution.

No, I'm specifically calling out this solution as one that might appear reasonable, but really isn't.

D&D is a game that relies on highly codified rules (and not vague rulings).

The current stealth implementation is essentially broken, unworkable, borked.

Replacing it isn't a simple matter.

It is much easier to swallow your pride and replace a character than casually demand a DM to come up with a replacement off the cuff that is well integrated and balanced.

You don't need to kill off a character to replace it. Just say he changed his mind, and went home. Instead you see Rawr the Barbarian coming up the path.

Point is: for a slightly rigid D&D Dungeon Master accustomed to rules that just work, 5th edition completely dropped the ball on stealth.

So why not work with the rules that DO work, and save your stealthy archetypes for a DM that's prepared to make it work? ☺

 

[Oofta]

There is not much to add to the advice already given. Talk it out with your DM.

But reading through all the responses, I wonder--don't any of you allow some heroic, cinematic cheese into my games when it comes to stealth.

I rarely say "no, there is no way you can stealth/hide." In my last campaign, one player played a gnome rogue assassin and somewhere in the mid levels there was a battle on these circular stairs and he wanted to attack and then use a cunning action to hide. Instead of saying, "oh come one, that's ridiculous." I just gave the baddies an advantage on their contested Wis (perception) role and I let him make a Dex (stealth) check. With high rolls aided by high proficiency bonuses. Of course, in situations like this, I like to make the players describe how and where they are hiding. So we have this gnome lying flat on lower stairs, rounding the corner above or below the center of the battle, hiding behind other players. It was two baddies against 6 players, so in the chaos of battle I can reason that it will be hard for them to keep their eyes on the gnome, but really, I just found the scene so cartoonishly silly, and it just seems right that a gnome rogue would get away with something like this. He got to shine and I got a chuckle.

I don't know why some DMs hate rogues. I saw this once at an Adventurer's League game. The DM seemed to be purposefully trying to make it imposible for the player to play his rogue as anything other than a fighter in light armor. Boo! Rogues are great. They may break your heart if you didn't plan your encounters for them, but it is made up for with picturing your little stabby gnome dancing among the shadows and dodging fireball damage.

To the objection of "that's ridiculous," the answer is "that's D&D!"

I've done similar things, I just want a little more creativity from my players than "I hide behind the same corner and have advantage every round". I try to set up a variety of encounters, some which lend themselves to stealth, some which don't. Rogues should be getting in sneak attack most rounds anyway, they don't need to be hidden.

For example, I had a fight in a warehouse. Plenty of boxes, crates and bundles to hide behind or climb on. The rogue could snipe, hide and then move, jumping from crate to crate to get a different position. Acrobatics checks were called for in a couple of instances as the crates were not always that sturdy. But because he kept popping out from different places all the time he always had a chance to be hidden. I did give the enemy advantage after the second round as they knew the tactic, but as long as he kept moving he had a chance to surprise them [be hidden when attacking].

In other cases, they popped out from an alley, got advantage on the first attack but after that the enemy knew there was someone in the alley so no more option to hide.

For the OP though, that's going to be tougher if he remains a straight ranger with no option to hide as a bonus action.

 

[Oofta]

D&D is a game that relies on highly codified rules (and not vague rulings).

That's where we have a fundamental disagreement. The devs have said many, many time that this version was specifically designed to not be highly codified in many ways. That it is rulings over rules. There was a point where there were "highly codified rules" for stealth, but they made the conscious decision to toss them so that the group had flexibility on how to run it.

You may not like it, but the stealth rules or lack therein work as intended. See this link or this one.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's where we have a fundamental disagreement. The devs have said many, many time that this version was specifically designed to not be highly codified in many ways. That it is rulings over rules. There was a point where there were "highly codified rules" for stealth, but they made the conscious decision to toss them so that the group had flexibility on how to run it.

You may not like it, but the stealth rules or lack therein work as intended. See this link or this one.

If they intended the stealth rules to not work straight out of the box without heavy DM intervention, then yes.

Other than that, don't you see how incredibly condescending you come across as given the context of this thread?

We're literally discussing the case where the DM needs specific procedures and isn't getting them.

What's "working as intended" about that? Eh?

---

Anyway, I'm sure the OP will appreciate your "helpful" solution. "Don't worry, your DMs inability to make your concept work is just the rules working as intended. He's just a bad DM - the rules work perfectly."

Contrast to my approach: "The 5E Stealth rules are best avoided or replaced. If your DM isn't prepared for this, the easiest solution is to play a non-stealthy character. Maybe you can offer to DM the next time, and show by example how stealth can be made to work ☺".

 

[Oofta]

If they intended the stealth rules to not work straight out of the box without heavy DM intervention, then yes.

Other than that, don't you see how incredibly condescending you come across as given the context of this thread?

We're literally discussing the case where the DM needs specific procedures and isn't getting them.

What's "working as intended" about that? Eh?

---

Anyway, I'm sure the OP will appreciate your "helpful" solution. "Don't worry, your DMs inability to make your concept work is just the rules working as intended. He's just a bad DM - the rules work perfectly."

Contrast to my approach: "The 5E Stealth rules are best avoided or replaced. If your DM isn't prepared for this, the easiest solution is to play a non-stealthy character. Maybe you can offer to DM the next time, and show by example how stealth can be made to work ☺".

I've explained how I run stealth and why, my main suggestion is that he discuss it with the DM to figure out how he runs it. Based on general responses, I'd say most people are happy with the design of the stealth rules once they've seen them in play. Saying "replace them" is unhelpful. Replace them with what? There's not going to be an official rule correction, so what's the alternative?

Personally, I'm glad the rules are written as they are because it lets the DM dial the stealth rules in based on what type of game they want to run. Previous editions that had detailed specific rules which in my personal experience led to a lot of rules-lawyering and head-scratching questions of "how does that make sense?" YMMV of course.

 

[CapnZapp]

. Saying "replace them" is unhelpful.

That wasn't my suggestion.

My suggestion was to play a character not reliant on stealth.

The part where I used what you quoted was the initial stage: to accept that a "rigid DM" can't be expected to make the rules work.

 

[iserith]

But reading through all the responses, I wonder--don't any of you allow some heroic, cinematic cheese into my games when it comes to stealth.

For my part, I've given the players the conditions under which they are considered hidden. It's on them to do something heroic or cinematic within those parameters.