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

[Lyxen]

That seems more reasonable to me. It’s ruling that you can’t hide in the same spot twice, or that you can’t get advantage on the attack if you do hide in the same spot twice that I object to.

I don't think that this has been mentioned by anyone.

Circumstantial advantage and disadvantage is something I generally think don’t get used enough, so this is a ruling I wouldn’t mind too much as a player.

Cool.

 

[jayoungr]

As for the Dev's intent, here it is, about keeping track of invisible opponents: "A group is going to be on really firm ground if they just decide so. We just assume combatants always know where invisible characters are, unless those characters have hidden themselves by making a Dexterity style check, your saying when the monsters are hidden or know anyone."

I don't see how this contradicts what I said earlier, because I specifically mentioned "a Dexterity style check" (i.e., stealth check).

Not watching a rogue with devastating attacks should remove you quickly from the gene pool.

But not giving the majority of your attention to the fighter who's in your face with a sword should do it even quicker!

It covers any type of activity, basically, but the thing is that you cannot only hide if the target cannot see you clearly anyway. If you pop out from behind a pillar, and the target is watching that pillar because - even though you are silent and all - he knows that it's the only place that you can be hidden behind, you will no longer be hidden.

I have two responses to that. First, the rule doesn't say "If you come out of hiding OR approach a creature, it usually sees you." It says, "If you come out of hiding AND approach a creature, it usually sees you." Second, after you've attacked, yes, the creature knows where you are until and unless you hide again. What people are quibbling on is whether losing the "unseen" status takes effect before or after you make the attack. Page 192 of the PHB says, to me, that it's intended to take effect after the attack.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think that this has been mentioned by anyone.

As @jayoungr observes, my understanding was that we were quibbling over when “popping out” to attack from a hidden position causes the attacker to be spotted - do you get advantage on the attack and then get spotted after it hits or misses (or just after it hits if you have Skulker)? Or do you get spotted immediately and lose the benefits of being hidden before you can even make the attack? I believe the former is RAW.

Also, I got the impression that some folks were saying they rule that you can’t hide in an obvious spot (such as behind a lone pillar or a Medium sized ally if you’re a lightfoot halfling), or else that doing so only works once and thereafter you can’t hide in the same spot.

Cool.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

"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.

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.

But the result of that approach is that you don't encourage thinking about the situation in the game world, only about thinking it tactically as in a board game. And in the end, the characters end up being as dumb as board game pieces, that's all. It does not mean that the game or the players themselves are dumb, they can be very clever in the application of that mechanistic tactical gaming, it's just not the same game, and see below about this.

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 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.

Not at all. I have played almost exactly the same adventures in all editions of the game, and although technically BECMI or AD&D are very different from 5e, the adventures can be transposed almost instantly. This is because I play the game as it was designed, as a roleplaying game where (as per the PH once more): "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama".

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.

The only edition that I had real problem with was 4e because it was so restrictive that I could not play the same adventures anymore, which, again, is pointed out by the Devs themselves: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."

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

The rules are not the core of the game. Although they are an important part of the game, they are just there to support it.

System matters.

And again, I don't invalidate it, I just make it less effective because, once more, it's a roleplaying game (The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery) not a boardgame, and that an adventurer that just was ambushed and received a devastating attack from a shadowy figure that has retreated just behind the lone barrel that he popped out from 1 second before, and is not specifically watching that barrel again is, yes, terminally dumb, and should expect to die soon.

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.

First, I don't blame the rule, and second, I'm not changing anything. If anything, you are the one insisting to play using only some rules, but let me remind you of a few other rules, just as valid:

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

• Ignoring the dice: "With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors... This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities."

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."

Ideas like hiding in the same spot, for example.

• Advantage: "Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success." So if a player is telling me that he is watching that pillar for the rogue that he KNOWS that the rogue is hidden behind because he is an unimaginative idiot, the player will get advantage.

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?

• Disadvantage: "Some aspect of the environment makes success less likely" because there is only one damn pillar in that area and everyone knows that is where the rogue went.

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?

All of these are official rules, and just as valid as anything in the description of the rogue and its technical abilities. I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring the open-endedness of the game by restricting yourself to a limited set of technical rules.

Well, two of them are. The first one is a suggestion. And, they don't have to be used, so the argument that you using them is bettererest than not using them is not logical. Nor is my saying I wouldn't use them in the way you are any statement to my ignoring these rules. This is a very strange line you're taking here.

And that opponent is dumb, don't forget it, and not able to take the slightest countermeasure, while at the same time keeping track of all invisible creatures on the battlefield... sigh.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

And why is it bad to have a game that matches your opinion and your style of playing ? Especially if it's shared with your players, which is certainly the case at our tables.

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 the DM's role anyway to describe the world the way he sees it. Hopefully, it will please the players, who can exercise their cleverness in bringing life to that world.

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.

Then don't imagine creatures that, after receiving a devastating sneak attack and see the rogue retreat behind the exact same pillar, will behave as if nothing happened. Goldfish memory at best.

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!"

 

[Ovinomancer]

My understanding is that the disadvantage some would impose is on the Dec(Stealth) check to hide again in the exact same spot, not on the subsequent attack from that spot.

A distinction without a difference, given the arguments made.

It's fine to do this, by the way. You're welcome to. It's the mocking as stupid people that don't, or the assumption of better rules use, or that it's unimaginative to not have a fixed imagination of the way it works that galls me.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't think that this has been mentioned by anyone.

It has:

The first time a hidden rogue can be clearly seen from the exact same location in my games they will get advantage. Just not the second time.

Also, I just noticed this comment while looking for that one:

To target someone, you need to see him. When you are behind the pilar, maybe your target does not see you, but you can't see it either and you can't attack him. If he is watching the pilar because he knows you are behind it (because you always do, always hiding there), when you come out to target then attack him, you will no longer be unseen and therefore not have advantage.

To me, what you are describing here is attempting to duck behind a pillar and pop out to attack without succeeding on a stealth check to hide.

I'm curious: what about this is different from how you'd handle the situation with no stealth check? Or to put it another way, what difference does the stealth check make?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nobody is altering rules, just making rulings that makes sense to the DM and the group.

Who said they were? I mean, I'm being told I'm ignoring rules, but I haven't said that to anyone else.

The fact that you don't seem to be able to accept that different people have different preferences and implementations while still following the letter of the rules is not my problem.

Oh, I accept it fine. I don't accept that the argument for this ruling is obvious, or clear, or that it make better use of the rules, or that not doing it means characters are dumb, or that it's at all related in any way to trying to hide behind a towel, or any number of dismissive, insulting, or rude statements made about people that don't apply disadvantage.

But this is just more "I'm right, you're wrong". There is no one true way.

It's sooo very amusing how selective you are with this argument.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't see how this contradicts what I said earlier, because I specifically mentioned "a Dexterity style check" (i.e., stealth check).

But not giving the majority of your attention to the fighter who's in your face with a sword should do it even quicker!

The reason for my quote had nothing to do with Dexterity (Stealth) Checks, but was to point out that the Devs expect everyone, whether they are fighting hand to hand or not, to keep a tab on invisible opponents to know their rough location as long as they are not succeeding at stealth checks.

This to show that the Devs clearly intend a fairly high level of awareness and keeping tracks of things that can barely be seen in addition to your usual acitivites.

I have two responses to that. First, the rule doesn't say "If you come out of hiding OR approach a creature, it usually sees you." It says, "If you come out of hiding AND approach a creature, it usually sees you." Second, after you've attacked, yes, the creature knows where you are until and unless you hide again. What people are quibbling on is whether losing the "unseen" status takes effect before or after you make the attack. Page 192 of the PHB says, to me, that it's intended to take effect after the attack.

You are over-reading that sentence, that starts with an "if", but as I pointed out before, if you can be seen, you are no longer hidden, so if you need to be seen to make your attack, at that point, you don't get the advantage. Again, if the only reason you are hidden is because you are behind the pillar, you cannot pop out and attack before being seen.

 

[Lyxen]

To me, what you are describing here is attempting to duck behind a pillar and pop out to attack without succeeding on a stealth check to hide.

I'm curious: what about this is different from how you'd handle the situation with no stealth check? Or to put it another way, what difference does the stealth check make?

Remember, because the rogue is not in plain sight, I will allow a stealth check. Depending on the circumstances, it might be normal, or with disadvantage (2nd time hiding from the same spot), or maybe even automatically fail (3rd time for example). If the check succeeds, the rogue will get advantage. But as he becomes more and more predictable, his chances to succeed will diminish and it will become harder to get advantage.

Note that he target might also get advantage on his perception check, or automatic success, depending on his declarations, because that is exactly what the game is about. Of course, if he focuses too much on the pillar, he might get disadvantage on other checks, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. But I think it makes the game much more interesting by making in character decisions more relevant and more engaging to the player.

 

[jayoungr]

The reason for my quote had nothing to do with Dexterity (Stealth) Checks, but was to point out that the Devs expect everyone, whether they are fighting hand to hand or not, to keep a tab on invisible opponents to know their rough location as long as they are not succeeding at stealth checks.

In the situation we've been talking about all along, the rogue has been succeeding on stealth checks. Or at least, that's what I've been talking about.

You are over-reading that sentence, that starts with an "if",

I don't think so. Let me put it another way: they could easily have said, "If you come out of hiding, all creatures present will usually see you." Why do you think they bothered to add that bit about approaching a creature?

but as I pointed out before, if you can be seen, you are no longer hidden, so if you need to be seen to make your attack, at that point, you don't get the advantage. Again, if the only reason you are hidden is because you are behind the pillar, you cannot pop out and attack before being seen.

Then how do you read the sentence on page 192 that says, "If you succeed [on the Hide action], you gain certain benefits, as described in the 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' section later in this chapter"? If you're going to suggest that you only get the benefits of being an unseen target, why doesn't it specify that you only get some of the benefits in that section?