It was more to demonstrate impaired Perception and that something could be in plain view and people could still fail a Wisdom (Perception) check if they are focused on something else (like combat).That’s not really stealth though.
It was more to demonstrate impaired Perception and that something could be in plain view and people could still fail a Wisdom (Perception) check if they are focused on something else (like combat).That’s not really stealth though.
I think you might do well to watch any team sport in action. People whose job it is to be cognizant of their surroundings as people move with dangerous purpose around them have a pretty good sense of where everyone is. Do folks sometimes get blindsided? Sure. But that is what the GM is for in this situation.No, the relevant rule is that by default, a creature in combat is aware of their surroundings, which is nonsense. It takes effort, active focus, and usually training, to be aware of your surroundings in a fight. The default is exactly opposite reality.
That would be a reasonable and believable rule, yeah. And it’s dead simple.I think you might do well to watch any team sport in action. People whose job it is to be cognizant of their surroundings as people move with dangerous purpose around them have a pretty good sense of where everyone is. Do folks sometimes get blindsided? Sure. But that is what the GM is for in this situation.
If I had to make a rule for it, i would say this: characters engaged in melee have a choice as to whether to take disadvantage on their perception checks versus incoming "blindside" attacks, or to suffer disadvantage to their own attacks. It actually models quarterbacks trying to survive in the pocket pretty well. You could flip it too, if you wanted.
Nope. The game can easily implement non-complex facing rules (you are facing the last person you attacked unless you state otherwise), and/different defaults (you’re aware of creatures that aren’t trying to avoid your notice within 60ft, who aren’t under any concealment).The game has two options - either implement a complex 'facing' rule or simply leave it down to DM discretion when a monster is aware of its entire surroundings (defaulting to a general awareness of your surroundings in the absence of the DM choosing to exercise that discretion).
Facing rules in D&D don't make sense. A round is 6 seconds. When you implement facing rules, you end up facing in one direction for almost that entire time despite the fact that you're engaged in combat and moving around during that round.Nope. The game can easily implement non-complex facing rules (you are facing the last person you attacked unless you state otherwise), and/different defaults (you’re aware of creatures that aren’t trying to avoid your notice within 60ft, who aren’t under any concealment).
Uh, it's kinda specifically their thing, with a special power built-in to the class just for that, and highlighted by the creator of the rules as something they are definitely intended to do.Rogues shouldn't try and hide in battle.
Right. It only says that you have 360 vision at almost all times. All times was an exaggeration. It's still a ridiculous idea. Someone who has his focus that scattered in combat also has his brains scattered in the same combat.I think your concerns are a bit... exaggerated.
The PHB (p177) says:
I certainly don't read that as "360 degree field of vision at all times". Does anyone?
Nope. The game can easily implement non-complex facing rules (you are facing the last person you attacked unless you state otherwise)