Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8374319" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Sure. Obviously if a DM’s rulings are so consistently anti-player that they can’t retain players then they won’t have a game left to rule on. But, being unable to hide in most combat circumstances isn’t a particularly onerous ruling - it’s common enough that WotC had to add the Aim maneuver in Tasha’s so ranged rogues could have the damage output they’re supposed to, and on a personal level, such a ruling would be enough to keep me from playing a rogue in someone’s game, but not enough to keep me from playing in their game at all. YMMV.Nor am I, but the impressiveness of her arguments isn’t really relevant here. The rules explicitly say the DM decides when it’s possible to hide. She shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that.“I don’t agree with your ruling, but I’ll defend to the death your right to make it.”</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8374319, member: 6779196"] Sure. Obviously if a DM’s rulings are so consistently anti-player that they can’t retain players then they won’t have a game left to rule on. But, being unable to hide in most combat circumstances isn’t a particularly onerous ruling - it’s common enough that WotC had to add the Aim maneuver in Tasha’s so ranged rogues could have the damage output they’re supposed to, and on a personal level, such a ruling would be enough to keep me from playing a rogue in someone’s game, but not enough to keep me from playing in their game at all. YMMV. Nor am I, but the impressiveness of her arguments isn’t really relevant here. The rules explicitly say the DM decides when it’s possible to hide. She shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that. “I don’t agree with your ruling, but I’ll defend to the death your right to make it.” [/QUOTE]

Verification