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

[jayoungr]

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.

Nope, we're both women, and we've been friends for thirty years without a major fight. And when the shoe's been on the other foot, she's never been defential or apologetic toward me. Which is one reason I'm so gobsmacked by her reaction to all of this.

I mean, I'm not saying there's no way your approach would have worked. I just didn't expect, given our previous history, that it's something she would have expected me to assume.

But seriously, all of this really is a side issue.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry not firing into melee but firing through your own team or another creature. The cover rules.

If DMs not using the aim rule smart rogue melees switching to range if need be.

The rogue has hit points use them. You can reduce the damage and you have hit dice as well.

You're basically screwing your own party over by hanging back unless you have plenty of meat shields maybe.

By all means use ranged if you have to or are low on hit points.

The bolded argument only holds up if we assume that groups don’t communicate. I’ve played “deadly ghost permastealth” characters in multiple editions and in other games. You just don’t do it when it would lead to the squishy mage getting overrun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And it should have ended there.

Not all tables play that way.

You’d be in a far worse position in my group for saying this than for what OP did.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Have you been tracking the damage numbers of every character in your campaigns so you can find and compare their average damage output over time? Because if not then course you haven’t experienced it because that’s the level on which the effect manifests. It probably feels like rogues are doing fine in your games, but human brains are really bad at intuiting those things. Unless you’re actually crunching the numbers, you’re not going to notice the difference. But it’s there, and it’s significant.

If the vast majority of people will never notice it, barring statistically unlikely confluence of bad damage rolls in a dense grouping, then the difference isn’t significant. To be significant, it has to actually impact the experience.

“Statistically significant” is a different term from “significant”, if it helps. They don’t actually equate, much of the time.

The difference exists on spreadsheets. At the table, rogues kick ass.

 

[Umbran]

And when the shoe's been on the other foot, she's never been defential or apologetic toward me.

Simple apologies aren't "deferential". They're basic politeness. "Hey, I'm sorry about how that came out at game. I didn't mean to give you a rough time. I don't quite understand what was happening there, and I'd like to check that we're cool..." or the like is just showing a little respect and care for the other person.

I mean, if the other person isn't more important than the ruling... that's not a good scene, right?

Which is one reason I'm so gobsmacked by her reaction to all of this.

A friend of 30 years acts in an uncharacteristically brusque manner? Sounds like more of a reason to be considerate, rather than less.

I mean, I'm not saying there's no way your approach would have worked. I just didn't expect, given our previous history, that it's something she would have expected me to assume.

I'm rather suggesting to not assume things - I'm suggesting finding out what's up with them, and understanding their perspective before pressing your case, rather than assuming things are normal.

If nothing else, the empirical evidence is all around us on this site - simply presenting a counter-argument does not change a lot of minds. We get hundred-page long threads of folks presenting counter arguments to each other, without nary a shift among them.

But seriously, all of this really is a side issue.

Fair enough. I've said my piece.

 

[Umbran]

Not all tables play that way.

You’d be in a far worse position in my group for saying this than for what OP did.

For saying... what? That you shouldn't argue with the GM in the moment, and should bring up rules disputes afterwards? Because that's all I'm saying. This is controversial?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For saying... what? That you shouldn't argue with the GM in the moment, and should bring up rules disputes afterwards? Because that's all I'm saying. This is controversial?

Yep. It’s a normal part of play, policing the player who challenged what seems to be a mistaken rules quotation.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the vast majority of people will never notice it, barring statistically unlikely confluence of bad damage rolls in a dense grouping, then the difference isn’t significant. To be significant, it has to actually impact the experience.

I didn’t say the vast majority of people will never notice it.

“Statistically significant” is a different term from “significant”, if it helps. They don’t actually equate, much of the time.

Fair enough, but significant also doesn’t equate to huge.

The difference exists on spreadsheets. At the table, rogues kick ass.

Different people have different evaluations of the rogue’s ass-kicking ability. I personally think they’re pretty well designed to feel powerful, even if their average damage per round is a bit low given their lack of nova capabilities. And I think that’s a mark of good design - how something feels in play is more important than exact numbers. But, the fact that this issue comes up again and again shows that a lot of players don’t feel their rogues are kicking ass in play when their DMs are stingy with the conditions to hide.

 

[Plaguescarred]

If you're being observed you can't hide. In a lot of combats that makes hiding hard.

Barring any distractions, being clearly seen makes it impossible to hide just as much in combat than out of combat so it's not any harder. In fact it could be even easier in combat as you have more chances to be distracted!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Simple apologies aren't "deferential". They're basic politeness. "Hey, I'm sorry about how that came out at game. I didn't mean to give you a rough time. I don't quite understand what was happening there, and I'd like to check that we're cool..." or the like is just showing a little respect and care for the other person.

I mean, if the other person isn't more important than the ruling... that's not a good scene, right?

Why isn't the GM expected to apologize then, in the same way, coming to the player after the session and saying, "Sorry about that, you got some rough treatment and I feel bad. Can we work this out?"

Oh, yes, because they're the GM and it's the player that need to apologize first to establish the correct social heirarchy.

A friend of 30 years acts in an uncharacteristically brusque manner? Sounds like more of a reason to be considerate, rather than less.

Right, so the GM should do this? You do realize that you're justifying telling the player that they need to show deference to the GM by ignoring the converse of your arguments, yes? No?

I'm rather suggesting to not assume things - I'm suggesting finding out what's up with them, and understanding their perspective before pressing your case, rather than assuming things are normal.

You seemed rather forceful in telling people how they should act. To follow your own advice, if you intended a gentle suggestion, there were other ways than to start by berating the OP.

If nothing else, the empirical evidence is all around us on this site - simply presenting a counter-argument does not change a lot of minds. We get hundred-page long threads of folks presenting counter arguments to each other, without nary a shift among them.

This is a forum, where people come to argue. Trying to suggest that this is a model for how things work at the table is pretty silly, yes? No?

Fair enough. I've said my piece.

Indeed, but curiously absent the above suggested apology.