D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[CleverNickName]

I think she's right. I also don't allow rogues to hide in combat unless there is something to hide behind (a nearby shrub, a table or chair, a large rock) and they have enough movement to reach it. I rule that your opponent can always "clearly see you" unless you are magically invisible or shrouded in darkness.

 

[Zardnaar]

On my experience rogues deal similar damage to sword and board fighters/Paladins. The +-5/+10 feats let warrior types outdanaged them. Assuming they sneak attack whenever they hit.

A well built fighter or ranger beats them as well.

Out one is using a hand crossbow (Drow campaign) rarely misses bit seems to be getting outdamaged by both if the clerics level 9+.
4 or 5 d6 sneak attack looks good but then they're competing with spiritual weapons/guardians and a cantrip or attack.

One cleric us light the other is twilight. They just hit level 11 although the rogue MCed as a fight (scout 8/champion 3).

Clerics are pure light cleric 11 and Sorcerer1/Cleric 10.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree with what makes rogues enjoyable to play then. DPR isn't the end-all-be-all for a lot of people. That, and I probably just don't play with optimizers.


EDIT: to be clear, optimizers in the sense of PCs other than the rogue doing enough more damage to be noticed. Most of the time the rogue is doing as much or more damage than anyone else.

Yeah, for sure. Like I said, average DPR isn’t everything; far from it in fact. And if you find the rogue satisfying to play without being able to reliably get advantage, nothing wrong with that at all!

 

[Umbran]

I dropped it rather than hold up the session too much. I then went back to her over Discord yesterday, armed with page numbers.

So, I don't want to read too much into word choice but going "armed" implies a presumption that you would be re-entering conflict...

I acknowledged (twice) that the game was hers to run and the calls were hers to make

Okay, that's good.

But... did you apologize? Like, "Hey, look GM, I'm sorry about that at the last session. I didn't mean to cause any difficulty. If you'd like to talk about it, I'm open..." And maybe find out why she gave that ruling before trying to prove her wrong? If you didn't do that, you basically set her right back in the same position as before, and you should not expect different results.

The first part of diplomacy and persuasion is understanding the other person's position - both in logic and emotional state. If she was still miffed at you, coming in with page numbers and argument were not going to win the day. You needed to establish that you want to work with her, not to get to her to accept you were correct all along.

Oh, and whether you think you actually did anything that calls for apology is completely aside the point.

 

[jayoungr]

So, here's the thing, @Umbran : I let your original wording slide, but I didn't actually "start arguing with the DM while she was trying to adjudicate a combat." It was the other way around. The rogue missed her second or third shot in a row and seemed disappointed. I said "Hey, if you hide, you can get advantage on your shot. And since you're a halfling, you can hide behind the warlock." That's when the DM jumped in and said, "No, she can't hide because she's in combat and the oni can see her." And I said, "Huh? That's what rogues are supposed to do--that's why they have hide as a bonus action. I do it all the time in other games." And then her husband quoted the thing from page 177 about how you can't hide in combat if you're seen. Because I didn't have a counter-reference handy, I just said "Well, my other DMs let me do it," and the DM and her husband said the DMs were wrong, and I let it drop so as not to derail the game further. (This is why I said I came back "armed," because I didn't have a reference to point to before.)

Also, I have DM'd for these players before, and they have certainly never been the slightest bit apologetic about challenging me on rulings.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, I don't want to read too much into word choice but going "armed" implies a presumption that you would be re-entering conflict...



Okay, that's good.

But... did you apologize? Like, "Hey, look GM, I'm sorry about that at the last session. I didn't mean to cause any difficulty. If you'd like to talk about it, I'm open..." And maybe find out why she gave that ruling before trying to prove her wrong? If you didn't do that, you basically set her right back in the same position as before, and you should not expect different results.

The first part of diplomacy and persuasion is understanding the other person's position - both in logic and emotional state. If she was still miffed at you, coming in with page numbers and argument were not going to win the day. You needed to establish that you want to work with her, not to get to her to accept you were correct all along.

Oh, and whether you think you actually did anything that calls for apology is completely aside the point.

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree at all that such deference should be shown to a GM that you apologize regardless of if you think you have anything to apologize for. That's what you do to show social deference to a superior. Regardless of your admonitions on how to properly negotiate, the reality is that the discussion after the game is peer to peer and you're recommending how to butter up someone higher up the pecking order. The GM owes the player as much deference in this out-of-game discussion as the player owes the GM. I strive to engage and consider issues my players bring to me and engage in discussion on the matter without ego as GM -- if the table wants to do things way X, and I can live with that, we do it that way. If I cannot, then we should probably not play this game with this assignment of roles. But the idea that you have to supplicate the GM to convince them, and apologize for a polite question during the game? Yeah, no.

 

[Umbran]

It was the other way around. The rogue missed her second or third shot in a row and seemed disappointed. I said "Hey, if you hide, you can get advantage on your shot. And since you're a halfling, you can hide behind the warlock." That's when the DM jumped in and said, "No, she can't hide because she's in combat and the oni can see her."

And it should have ended there. The GM made a ruling. If you wanted to discuss it, you should have held it until after the session, but you didn't. It may have only been brief, but it was arguing.

Other games and GM's are irrelevant - bringing them up is effectively trying to trump her ruling with your personal experience, which is not okay, and bound to generate resistance. Worse, if you're a guy, you may have come across as trying to mansplain rules to the GM... and whoo-boy, yeah, that won't sit well.

But, in any case, that's not the central point. Whatever you thought you were doing, if you don't start the following discussion trying to suss out why the GM did what they did, both in a rules and emotional sense, you are setting up to fail.

 

[Rabulias]

True that! Also Rogues have high initiative and often go before their allies (especially that heavy armor Paladin that dumped dex) which means they won't always have that buddy there on their first turn. Unless they are a swashbuckler or an assasin that can make sneak attack hard to get on the first turn.

That's when the rogue moves into position and Readies to Attack "when a hostile creature is within 5 feet of my target."

 

[Ovinomancer]

And it should have ended there. The GM made a ruling. If you wanted to discuss it, you should have held it until after the session, but you didn't. It may have only been brief, but it was arguing.

Other games and GM's are irrelevant - bringing them up is effectively trying to trump her ruling with your personal experience, which is not okay, and bound to generate resistance. Worse, if you're a guy, your may have come across as trying to mansplain rules to the GM... and whoo-boy, yeah, that won't sit well.

But, in any case, that's not the central point. Whatever you thought you were doing, if you don't start the following discussion trying to suss out why the GM did what they did, both in a rules and emotional sense, you are setting up to fail.

Jebus. Are you for realz? "Be a good little player and take it, but if you must, make sure to supplicate the GM in the proper, deferential manner, because, you know, they're a GM and deserve such deference!"

Good grief, this is part and parcel of the highly toxic part of our hobby, where a role in a game is translated into social pecking orders and proscribed behaviors like asking questions.

 

[Nefermandias]

And it should have ended there. The GM made a ruling. If you wanted to discuss it, you should have held it until after the session, but you didn't. It may have only been brief, but it was arguing.

Other games and GM's are irrelevant - bringing them up is effectively trying to trump her ruling with your personal experience, which is not okay, and bound to generate resistance. Worse, if you're a guy, your may have come across as trying to mansplain rules to the GM... and whoo-boy, yeah, that won't sit well.

But, in any case, that's not the central point. Whatever you thought you were doing, if you don't start the following discussion trying to suss out why the GM did what they did, both in a rules and emotional sense, you are setting up to fail.

You might ban me for saying that, Mr. Moderator, but I believe the intention of the original post was to discuss how people here usually adjudicate the Hide action in a D&D 5th edition game.

Discussing the emotional and social implications of the episode described by OP is beyond our scope. I don't think @jayoungr has ever required our input on how he should deal with his real life friends. I'm sure he knows them way better than us.