Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8378692" data-attributes="member: 6801845">First, I agree that D&amp;D is not a particularly realistic simulation.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do think that a rogue should get advantage in combat at least occasionally, or even on multiple turns in a combat with enough chaos and cover.&nbsp; It's not that they would never get to attack after being hidden, it's a question of is the target anticipating an attack from that location for me.If you have ... say a hundred archer goblins all firing at you at once but they weren't hidden before the attack they would not get advantage, correct?&nbsp; Because the assumption is that while you didn't know exactly who in your party they would be attacking, they were there and they were going to attack at some point.&nbsp; Your PC was anticipating the attack, even if the goblins were all firing from different directions they had no advantage.&nbsp; So I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you know where a rogue was attacking from, you are also anticipating their attack and there would be no advantage. One simple example: there are guards in the hall that are alert and ready for trouble.&nbsp; Typical, 10 foot wide corridor with a T-intersection that they're staring at.&nbsp; If a rogue comes around the corner they're staring at, I'm sorry but the rogue is not going to get advantage.&nbsp; They see you coming.&nbsp; On the other hand, if the rogue can stealthily get behind the guards to attack they will get advantage; the guards were expecting the attack from the T intersection in front of them, not the open door behind them.If you want to rule differently that's fine as well.&nbsp; There's just too many situations to have a blanket rule without DM adjudication and some level of &quot;does this at least kind-of-sort-of make sense to me&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are simply too many variables, too many preferences, to come up with hard-and-fast rules.&nbsp; Rules in previous editions often left our group scratching our heads thinking &quot;how the **** would that work&quot; because it was just too mechanical, too much rules over rulings.&nbsp; For us, it felt like a board game. So I have no problem with how people run it.&nbsp; I just have a problem with people quoting 1 sentence without considering anything else the rules say means &quot;RAW says I'm right&quot; or saying that &quot;this is the correct way to run it because it makes sense to me&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8378692, member: 6801845"] First, I agree that D&D is not a particularly realistic simulation. I do think that a rogue should get advantage in combat at least occasionally, or even on multiple turns in a combat with enough chaos and cover. It's not that they would [I]never[/I] get to attack after being hidden, it's a question of is the target anticipating an attack from that location for me. If you have ... say a hundred archer goblins all firing at you at once but they weren't hidden before the attack they would not get advantage, correct? Because the assumption is that while you didn't know exactly who in your party they would be attacking, they were there and they were going to attack at some point. Your PC was anticipating the attack, even if the goblins were all firing from different directions they had no advantage. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that [I]if [/I]you know where a rogue was attacking from, you are also anticipating their attack and there would be no advantage. One simple example: there are guards in the hall that are alert and ready for trouble. Typical, 10 foot wide corridor with a T-intersection that they're staring at. If a rogue comes around the corner they're staring at, I'm sorry but the rogue is not going to get advantage. They see you coming. On the other hand, if the rogue can stealthily get behind the guards to attack they will get advantage; the guards were expecting the attack from the T intersection in front of them, not the open door behind them. If you want to rule differently that's fine as well. There's just too many situations to have a blanket rule without DM adjudication and some level of "does this at least kind-of-sort-of make sense to me". There are simply too many variables, too many preferences, to come up with hard-and-fast rules. Rules in previous editions often left our group scratching our heads thinking "how the **** would that work" because it was just too mechanical, too much rules over rulings. For us, it felt like a board game. So I have no problem with how people run it. I just have a problem with people quoting 1 sentence without considering anything else the rules say means "RAW says I'm right" or saying that "this is the correct way to run it because it makes sense to me". [/QUOTE]

Verification