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

[Lyxen]

So you agree, then, that RAW does in fact say that succeeding on the Hide action grants the rogue the benefits of being an unseen attacker/target? In contradiction to post #338, where you said that RAW never says this?

It all depends on what you mean by the benefit, which is why, considering the level of nitpicking that you have now engaged on, in the later post, I have been even more precise than before.

As per the RAW, taking the hide action entitles you to certain benefits listed in a section called "Unseen attackers and targets". But the specific benefit that you are usually referring to, namely having advantage on your attack ONLY applies if you are unseen WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR ATTACK. So nitpick all you want here, the RAW does not directly allow that specific benefit at any time, it only applies if you are still unseen when you make your attack. Clear ?

You're claiming now that "most people" agree with you? On what do you base this?

OK, do you honestly believe that going to hide in the exact same spot that you just hid in before is not a stupid idea ? No matter how good you are ? Even young children playing hide and seek know better than this.

And I've already covered why I think there should be a functional difference here.

And I disagree with your thinking. There is no magic here, just skill. Why should there be a difference ? The rogue already has tons of advantages.

You mention narrative, but ironically enough, your statements in the previous paragraph about "imagining yourself in the situation" and the precise details of the bush and your attack, are very simulationist. (Note: I don't mean narrativist vs simulationist in the precise terms of GNS theory (which I'm not big on), just as lowercase generic concepts.)

I don't think we agree about what simulationist is. In the end, although I might balance several narrative factors to decide if I give adv/dis or not, I am not going to actually simulate what is happening, simulate the bush and the movements and add multiple modifiers. I am mostly going to consider the amount of effort and involvement made into describing the situation in a narrative way (actually, in most cases, I won't even describe the bush, I will let the player describe what is happening for me) to make a general call.

The technicalities don't interest me, only the fact that the player is really living the situation and visualising it in his head.

 

[Lyxen]

You said all those things, what words did I put in your mouth. You said I was illogical. You said my approach requires all creatures to be dumb. You said I don't have roleplaying or storytelling in my games. I quoted you, we can all scroll back up and see it.

No, I did not say that, and you did not quote me, you constantly misquote me.

Compare:

• Your claim: "First my play is dumb (or requires every creature to be dumb, which isn't actually different). Then it was that I don't roleplay at all."
• My actual sentences:
  • "I personally think that it looks silly, experienced adventurers and powerful monsters always getting caught by an adversary popping out at the exact same place, but if you want to play dumb monsters and adventurers, it's your game, you do whatever you want."
  • "Nope, never said that, what I said is that the adventurers and monsters that get played and that get surprised every round by the same rogue/goblin popping out at the exact same place are dumb. But it can be really funny to play dumb characters, I know, one of my best LARPs (continued as tabletop adventures) was when I was playing a really, really stupid Goblin."
  • Believe it or not, I don't call the approach dumb, I call it purely mechanistic, which is not what I'm intestered in about the game, although I understand that you are, as are many other players.
  • So neither are the play nor the players dumb, and if you can't see the difference, please look at what roleplaying means.
  • [talking about always hiding in the same place] "It's a clear lack of imagination and creativity, and so silly visually that it's never been done in any movie and book of the kind, genre or not, because it looks and feels dumb. The only way it works is for comedy effect on really dumb creatures, and even then whoever is writing the book/movie is clever enough to have the attacks at least pop out from various places. 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."
  • And again, I never said that your game lacks roleplaying or storytelling in general, just that at this stage of resolution of the hide action, it's purely technical (do an action, roll the dice, do not take the situation or the world consistency into account, just the rules) and that does not show any mark of roleplaying or storytelling, just applying the rules.

I might reply to the rest of the post once you have digested this and once I've sorted all the chaff from what has some remote interest to this thread.

I will answer the point below because it's relevant and not presented in too insulting a fashion.

I don't have that issue, because tables I play at establish a social contract where this isn't allowed unless the player invites it. Friendly questions are fine, if it's to establish understanding about something confusing, but if you don't get to tell others how they should play their character. I don't play at tables where this isn't part of the social contract. It's rude, in my opinion, and I'm not going to alter how I play to correct for rudeness. I'm going to deal with that out of game, at the table, and not in game. YMMV.

At our tables, we did not have this at start, but now we do. The thing is that it was sort of well intentioned at first, but the drift occurred during our 3e days where the game grew extremely complicated at high level. So what was only meant to be friendly advice top deal with complicated situations and choices derived into "strong suggestions" even if it never was "telling others what to do". So this is when we had to put that kind of contract in place.

The point of having the player tell me the goal of the action is so that I don't accidentally nix it when we resolve it. Without the goal, I might very well narrate a success on the action that negates the intent of the action, and that's bad juju for me. So, goal and approach. Goal so that both the player and I understand the stakes of the action and there's clear communication, and approach so that I can judge how difficult the action is.

The reason for not asking the goal at our table is twofold:

• First, it streamlines the game by making the declarations that much shorter.
• But also it avoids people trying to justify things to other players and getting some sort of "pass" that what they are doing is right, which not only has a tendency to draw people back in (see the point above), but also removes surprise and promotes metagaming.

So we stick with descriptions, and if they are not clear enough, we dig a bit more.

But then the descriptions really matter. If a player tells me, as a flourish "I keep an eye on that pillar because I know that this is the enemy rogue is hidden - he had nowhere else to go", I will take that into account for the actual resolution. I don't need a goal, it's after all rather obvious.

 

[jayoungr]

It all depends on what you mean by the benefit, which is why, considering the level of nitpicking that you have now engaged on, in the later post, I have been even more precise than before.

You're saying I'M the nitpicky one here? LOL.

OK, do you honestly believe that going to hide in the exact same spot that you just hid in before is not a stupid idea ?

So, you have no evidence to present that most people see things the way you do. Got it.

And I disagree with your thinking. There is no magic here, just skill.

I never said there was magic. I'm saying you're not allowing the rogue's skills to work in a roguely way.

The technicalities don't interest me, only the fact that the player is really living the situation and visualising it in his head.

Dude ... that's what simulation is.

But you know what? It's clear to me that we're just going around in circles at this point, and it'll go on forever unless one of us drops it. So I'm going to be the one to drop it. I'm bowing out of this discussion, or at least this subthread of it.

 

[Lyxen]

You're saying I'M the nitpicky one here? LOL.

And still, my answer shut you up. Good.

So, you have no evidence to present that most people see things the way you do. Got it.

And still you did not answer the question as to whether yourself or young children would consider hiding in the same places dumb or not. Got it.

I never said there was magic. I'm saying you're not allowing the rogue's skills to work on a roguely way.

I don't know what a roguely way is, what I know is that in all the genre, rogues are clever enough not to hide in the same place twice, for once, and that 5e does a really good job at making them stealthy and fun to play, and that has nothing to do with granting them automatic advantage because it's not in the rules.

Dude ... that's what simulation is.

Only in your definition.

But you know what? It's clear to me that we're just going around in circles at this point, and it'll go on forever unless one of us drops it. So I'm going to be the one to drop it. I'm bowing out of this discussion, or at least this subthread of it.

Look I've taken quite a bit time to explains things to you in great detail, but it's obvious that my answers are never going to satisfy you because you are looking for things which are not really in the spirit of the game as I play it, nor are they even in the rules. So have great games in the way that you prefer.

 

[Nefermandias]

And still, my answer shut you up. Good.



And still you did not answer the question as to whether yourself or young children would consider hiding in the same places dumb or not. Got it.



I don't know what a roguely way is, what I know is that in all the genre, rogues are clever enough not to hide in the same place twice, for once, and that 5e does a really good job at making them stealthy and fun to play, and that has nothing to do with granting them automatic advantage because it's not in the rules.



Only in your definition.



Look I've taken quite a bit time to explains things to you in great detail, but it's obvious that my answers are never going to satisfy you because you are looking for things which are not really in the spirit of the game as I play it, nor are they even in the rules. So have great games in the way that you prefer.

And who decides what the "spirit of the game" is? You?

 

[Mistwell]

Depending on the group, that can be harder than it sounds. The group where I've been playing a rogue the longest consists of me, a bard, a sorcerer/cleric multiclass, a wizard, and barbarian who hates getting hit.* When we started out, we also had a paladin, but that player dropped out. So the only other PC who is likely to be in melee with an enemy is the barbarian, who will avoid it whenever possible. And to make it tougher, I am usually ahead of the barbarian in initative, which means I can either attack immediately without sneak attack (unless I can get advantage somehow) or ready an action to attack when someone else engages the monster in melee, which isn't guaranteed.

This is frustrating for me because I'd like to be in melee more often, but the character just doesn't have the HP to soak up a lot of attacks.

*I know, I know, but the player is very young.

Wizard should be using their familiar to give you the help action at least.

 

[Lyxen]

And who decides what the "spirit of the game" is? You?

Can you at least read the complete sentence ? "...things which are not really in the spirit of the game as I play it..." So yes, obviously, if it's the spirit of the game as I play it, well, it's me.

As for the spirit of the game as intended by the devs, I would suggest reading the introduction to the PH. It involves a lot of interesting ideas like:

• To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game.
• You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama.

 

[Nefermandias]

Can you at least read the complete sentence ? "...things which are not really in the spirit of the game as I play it..." So yes, obviously, if it's the spirit of the game as I play it, well, it's me.

Good, because I find your overly simulationist views about stealth and hiding completely against what the 5e designers envisioned for the game.

 

[Mistwell]

The calculations account for accuracy. The fact of the matter is, since rogues rely on one big hit per turn to keep their average damage per round up to par, missing has a much bigger impact on them than it does on other classes. With two attacks or one attack with advantage, they about keep up with the fighter. With one attack without advantage, they fall behind. Since this is a matter of averages, it probably won’t be noticeable on a turn by turn basis. The disparity in average damage manifests over the course of many combats.

And they aren’t the best damage dealers in the game. If they get two attack rolls per round (be they two separate attacks or one attack with advantage) with the potential to do sneak attack damage, they do about the same at-will damage as a fighter, but still have lower average damage per round due to lacking the damage boost the fighter gets from Action Surge. And that’s just the Champion fighter! A rogue’s average DPR falls even further behind subclasses that have additional damage boosting resources like the battle master.

Let me repeat that: the rogue does less average damage per round than the fighter, even with two attacks or one advantage attack per round. If they don’t get that, they fall behind even further.

I disagree. And, that analysis has been done, and others who do a lot of this also disagree. Which doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, but it should at least establish this issue is open to debate. Rogues can and do outperform fighters in damage, though they do not outperform fighters in defense combined with damage.

Here is an arcana trickster expected damage versus the baseline damage of a properly set up warlock using their eldritch blast with appropriate invocations and such. I can pull the fighter comparison, but it lags this rogue at some levels and never meaningfully exceeds them.

 

[Oofta]

Good, because I find your overly simulationist views about stealth and hiding completely against what the 5e designers envisioned for the game.

Huh. Here I thought what the designers envisioned was that "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

So how I run the game might be different than you or anyone else. But as long as everyone at the table is having fun, why the **** do you care?