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

[Oofta]

I'll ask you the same question I've been asking everyone else who's said something similar: if you think it's up to the DM, how do you interpret the sentence on page 192 of the PHB that says that if you succeed on the Hide action, you gain benefits described under "Unseen Attackers and Targets"?

It doesn't say that. It says you follow the rules for hiding (page 177). Which, in some cases, means you can gain advantage but it's up to the DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

Still wondering if folks who think popping out to attack means you’ll be seen clearly have ever played a first person shooter. Corner-peeking works, as long as you vary the height from which you peek.

 

[Oofta]

Show where it says you can! Your argument is selective -- you're arguing that the GM having the ability to make rulings means you're in the rules but counter arguments are not.

And, I've said that if you just want to do this, that's fine. It's the argument that it's obvious that any creature would be extra-attentive to where the hiding PC is such that they, for free, get to apply disadvantage to the next DEX(stealth) check or that they get advantage to their next WIS(Perception) check that's flawed -- this is not anything but a very narrow look at possibilities and not at all something you have to get to via a look at the situation. That's what I'm arguing against -- the assertion that this is obvious and bettererest than other options.

He directly says that my approach leads to a "mechanistic" game and that this isn't real roleplaying or storytelling. Here's the quote, in the post you put your like on:

"Now, technically the game allows it, so if you want to play a purely technical game, have fun as much as you want, but don't pretend that it's roleplaying or storytelling at this stage."

You liked a post that 1) admits that the rules allow for this and 2) then says that it's not even roleplaying if you do it. If you want more context, feel free to go get it. Here's the link to the post: D&D 5E - Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

Also, I challenge you to quote me telling anyone my way is the only way, or even a better way. I'm very careful to put any such qualifiers as only in relation to my own gaming. My current way is better than my previous way, for me. That was an example.

I suppose it's easy to just assign me as a one-true-wayer -- makes it easier to dismiss anything I have to say. You should examine this for personal animus rather than a coherent position, though.

Well, they do, until something changes. But, given the context, you are correct that you do not get to make a single hide check and remain hidden despite changing conditions.

100% true. Never argued otherwise.

Yup. So, then, what are you arguing against with regards to my position, because you haven't gotten to anything different, yet.

You can't hide from anyone that can clearly see you is about as simple as it gets. The only reason you might still be able to get advantage is because the DM decides the target doesn't notice you for some reason. Page 177 of the PHB.

Your repeated insistence that you've been "pointing out failures in [your] argument" that I'm not following RAW tells me that you believe your way is the one true way.

In any case, I'm done discussing this with you, there's no point. Have a good one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your repeated insistence that you've been "pointing out failures in [your] argument" that I'm not following RAW tells me that you believe your way is the one true way.

@Ovinomancer isnt arguing that you aren’t following RAW. They’re arguing that your interpretation of the RAW is not the only valid one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer isnt arguing that you aren’t following RAW. They’re arguing that your interpretation of the RAW is not the only valid one.

And that the specific chain of logic being used is flawed, because it rests on an assumption about the fiction that isn't required.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'll ask you the same question I've been asking everyone else who's said something similar: if you think it's up to the DM, how do you interpret the sentence on page 192 of the PHB that says that if you succeed on the Hide action, you gain benefits described under "Unseen Attackers and Targets"?

It doesn't say that. It says you follow the rules for hiding (page 177). Which, in some cases, means you can gain advantage but it's up to the DM.

might want to read that paragraph again Oofta… it does say both what you indicated and what jayoungr is asking you about:

HIDE (PHB p 192)
When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding. If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section in the Player's Handbook.

 

[CleverNickName]

Still wondering if folks who think popping out to attack means you’ll be seen clearly have ever played a first person shooter. Corner-peeking works, as long as you vary the height from which you peek.

It's just my opinion, but I only allow that for instances where the attacker has cover (such as a corner to peek around from, or an overturned table to pop up from behind). Concealment or fancy footwork isn't enough for this at my table.

 

[jayoungr]

It doesn't say that. It says you follow the rules for hiding (page 177). Which, in some cases, means you can gain advantage but it's up to the DM.

Why does it only give advantage in some cases? Page 177 is almost entirely about the circumstances in which hiding can be attempted, and it does say that that is up to the DM. But the only reference to advantage on that page relates to the specific situation in which you emerge from cover and approach a distracted creature.

Page 192, on the other hand, says that once a hide check has been attempted successfully, certain conditions apply. (Was going to quote it, but I see @Swarmkeeper has already done so.)

 

[Lyxen]

"Purely mechanistic" isn't a thing, it's a made up term you're using to justify your presupposition. You have no idea what my game is like, only that I allow creatures to hide in the same space repeatedly with no penalty for doing that. Your guess that my game is "mechanistic" is just faffing around the discussion and trying out new words to justify you dismissing my play as lesser.

No, I qualify it as being different, and not to my taste. You are the only one applying values and being judgemental here.

The opposite is true, by the way. I stopped caring about this because I embraced a game where more is possible than my previous approach, not less. The rogue can hide this way because the fiction contains more space for it, not less. I still call for the mechanics, I'm just more willing to let them decide that something happens than to decide it for myself and tell my players they can't do that because of my failure of imagination.

This makes no sense to me, maybe you can explain further.

LOL. Dude, you absolutely cannot be more wrong. This is a point where you're forcing a very limited set of options on the rogue, not me. I'm not the one saying that it can only happen one way, and so that one way has to have disadvantage. I'm saying it can happen how it happens, and the player gets to tell me how it happened if it was successful. Did they roll out low? Did the wave a hanky on one side and pop out the other? Was the monster distracted at the crucial moment because the Paladin hollered, "now" and swiped for the monster's eyes?

I'm not forcing anything on the rogue, I'm just creating a universe where actions have consequences and where the declaration of players have some impact on the game, rather than a game where you just roll dices.

But again, both of these approaches are supported by the game. It's not a question of judgement, it's just that I prefer a game that corresponds to "This approach rewards creativity" rather than a game that is along the lines of "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

This is straight from the DMG, by the way.

I mean, which of those can happen in your game without earning disadvantage? Really, it's you that has the narrow view of what's happening and limits things to force actions you approve of. The rogue can just run behind that other pillar and be perfectly fine, despite the actual core of the issue -- can the rogue pop out and get advantage for being an unseen attacker -- hasn't changed at all.

I am running a game in which story matters, as well as players decision, rather than just letting dices decide, that's all.

Yes, this is very clear -- you're playing the same game despite the edition. Well, thing is, the editions are still different games. That you can paper over or ignore what makes those differences and force your particular brand of play on it doesn't change this, it just means you ignore it.

Our games have always felt natural whatever the edition, except with 4e especially at high level.

Nope. 4e wasn't any more restrictive than 3e. It was more honest about it, though.

Very strange sentences here. Was it more restrictive or not ? How can it be more honest about being restrictive if it was not ? Your sentences do not make any sense.

System matters.

Not that much. For example, look at Critical Role, they went from PF to 5e and continued the same campaign, no worries, the tone of the campaign and the stories have not changed at all. QED.

And the character that lets the fighter just swing the sword again at him from the same space is pretty dumb, too, huh? If the character has nothing else bothering them, why did they stand in the same place instead of walking around the barrel to where they could see behind it? I mean, you talk about dumb, but then your example is not very good -- a single character facing a single rogue and we call him dumb because he didn't watch the barrel closely enough? Dude, there's way more wrong with that than the barrel watching.

Well, of course, if they can move, it would be stupid not to do so, but the assumption has always been that they were in a fight and probably pinned down. But the two are not exclusive.

Not applying disadvantage is not refusing to use a rule, man. That's silly talk.

This is also listed as having drawbacks, which seem to directly apply here:

"A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if the sent the game in a direction he or she doesn't like."

Fortunately, the tastes in our group run in the same direction, so good ideas are not wasted, in particular because we don't feel constrained by rules when they get in the way of good ideas. |But this is almost another matter in itself.

Ideas like hiding in the same spot, for example.

Yes, because it's a silly idea, never seen in movies or books because no one would be dumb to do it or fall for it twice in a row.

It's of course up to you if you allow your players to do silly things in your game, but despite all your talk, all I hear is "the rules say so, so my rogue is entitled to it whatever the circumstances".

Okay, but we haven't discussed this, so I don't know why it's come up now as if we have. If a player tells me this, cool, I'd give advantage as well for that, but disadvantage for noticing anything else due to the focus, and disadvantage on attacks made against other creatures do to the focus spent.

Um, was that enough rule usage for your approval?

My judgement on this is that it's extremely harsh on a character. From my perspective, it looks like you absolutely want to favour the unimaginative rogue that mechanistically just wants his sneak attack with advantage every round, without any regards for the circumstances. Why you would like to do this, I have no idea, but you can do whatever you like in your campaign.

But I hope that you realise that, by doing this, you are completely blocking the imagination of the fighter and railroading his actions much more than with my approach.

So? This is cherry picking arguments that support your preferred outcome. There's only one pillar, but the rogue is really good at stealth and the creatures watching aren't that good at watching. If they focus on the pillar, that's fine, I'd allow them advantage, but they'd be at disadvantage on other things. Just because there's one place doesn't mean that everyone in the room isn't dealing with lots of other things and doesn't have extra attention to spare the pillar. If they did have the time, again, why not walk around to the other side of the pillar and moot the whole thing?

See above.

Oh, yeah, totes dumb, just like the monster that doesn't impose disadvantage on the fighter when the fighter swing the same weapon at him a second time! I mean, how dumb to you have to be to not see that coming and take countermeasures!

Your view of swordplay is very basic, as is your understanding of what is happening in a round. You do realise that the actions are not sequenced, and that each "attack" is not a single sword thrust ?

You've clearly never seen a Riddick movie, or an Avengers movie for that matter.

I admit that I've only seen one Riddick movie, but I've not seen anything this dumb even there. As for Avengers, no, I've not seen something that silly in there either.

It's funny that you ascribe a lack of imagination to people that don't imagine just one way this can work but leave it open to having lots of ways it can work. It's like, well, telling someone they are very picky eaters because they don't order pizza while they're building a salad at the salad bar to go with their steak. I mean, you're the one arguing for a single imagined vision of how things work, right?

No, you are the one saying that "one size fits all" and not bothering about circumstances at all. I'm very flexible, and will adapt my resolution to any declaration made by the players or imagined by the DM. And it will be different each time if the situation warrants it, because I believe that it's more fun that way than just rolling dices all evening to rack up sneak attack damage and saying it's awesome....

Oh, I will very much pretend that, but poorly, because pretending true things isn't really very good pretend. You're the one that has one story here -- one way it works -- and you're telling me, who's said I'm open to lots of ways for it to work, that if I don't agree with your one story that I'm not doing it right. Mkay, I'm not doing it right, and I've ecstatic to be wrong here -- my game is very rich and engaging. If not "roleplaying" means having lots of good roleplay and fun moments of the players describing how their characters are doing things, I'd prefer to not be right and have the GM tell me how it works every time because they have just the one way of looking at it.

The DM does not tell how it works, he just explain how the WORLD works, then the story is told by players, not by just rolling dice every round the same way just because the mechanics support it, that's all.

Thing is, though, that I don't think your way has less roleplay or story at all. I'm not so petty or insecure as to say that not playing my way is wrong or bad or not even roleplaying.

I'm not the one saying it, the Dev say it, my friend: "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

Deal with it.

It's not. More power to you! The argument that your approach is using the rules bettererest, though, or that not doing it your way is not roleplaying, or that not doing it your way is dumb character time, well... that is bad.

It's not to be a neutral arbiter of the rules, then? It's so hard to tell what the real job of the GM is these days.

All I know is that, when I GM, I occasionally let the players tell me how the world is. Seems peachy fine. Like, when I ask how they attack from hiding behind a pillar the second time in a row, I get a fun story about how that happened. YMMV.

If that's what you are looking for, great, but I'm pretty sure that never happens. I've seen many of games of that kind, and it's always rolling the dices to get as much damage as possible, never seen the slightest hint of roleplay about it. And then, you might be the exception, who knows, and if that's the case and you enjoy it, it's fine, happy gaming.

Uhuh, sure thing. The monster that just got smited by the paladin, though, he's not dumb to act like nothing happened and not impose disadvantage when the paladin attempts to do it a second time immediately afterwards, though. It's only hiding.

I know, I know, "that's different!"

Indeed it is because, you know, swordplay and shooting an arrow have very little in common. It's a varied game for a varied world, and seeing things your way is just one more proof that all what matters to you is rolling a d20 and rolling damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's just my opinion, but I only allow that for instances where the attacker has cover (such as a corner to peek around from, or an overturned table to pop up from behind).

How about a pillar or a lightfoot halfling’s Medium-sized ally?

Concealment or fancy footwork isn't enough for this at my table.

Concealment isn’t a game term in 5e, I assume you mean obscurement? I feel like if you’re sufficiently obscured to hide, you shouldn’t really need to peek out to attack.