D&D 5E thief used his invisibility HIDDING

[iserith]

Not everything needs to be DM adjudicated, some things are clearly spelled out.

All actions are adjudicated by the DM. See "How to Play," Basic Rules, page 3. When the DM determines that what the player described he or she wanted to do has an uncertain outcome, the DM invokes mechanics to help determine a result.

"This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon."

There should be no rules expectation on the part of a player that they get to make a check. (They might expect a given DM will rule a particular way, however, based on experience at that DM's table.) Further, asking to make a check is asking for a chance to fail when the DM may simply rule in your favor and grant auto-success based on his or her assessment of your goal and approach relative to the context of the situation.

 

[GlobeOfDankness]

All actions are adjudicated by the DM. See "How to Play," Basic Rules, page 3. When the DM determines that what the player described he or she wanted to do has an uncertain outcome, the DM invokes mechanics to help determine a result.

"This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon."

There should be no rules expectation on the part of a player that they get to make a check. (They might expect a given DM will rule a particular way, however, based on experience at that DM's table.) Further, asking to make a check is asking for a chance to fail when the DM may simply rule in your favor and grant auto-success based on his or her assessment of your goal and approach relative to the context of the situation.

at my table, players are free to assume they can make checks and i would think that''s probably pretty consistent across gaming groups..

it's a game that tells you to bring dice, it's a pretty safe bet that you'll get to roll them. people like to be contrarian in an attempt to gain internet points and lose sight of reality. no one is ever going to argue against the whole rule 0 gospel, but on the same hand, no DM actually wants to run a game like that.

 

[iserith]

at my table, players are free to assume they can make checks and i would think that''s probably pretty consistent across gaming groups..

it's a game that tells you to bring dice, it's a pretty safe bet that you'll get to roll them. people like to be contrarian in an attempt to gain internet points and lose sight of reality. no one is ever going to argue against the whole rule 0 gospel, but on the same hand, no DM actually wants to run a game like that.

I think you misread me. Because it's a game with dice, players should expect to roll dice from time to time during play. However, on an action-per-action basis, the player should have no expectation that they can make a check. It's up to the DM entirely whether or not a player's stated action has an uncertain outcome that is deserving of an ability check. If you really think about it, asking to make a check is asking for a chance to fail. The smart play (as far as success and failure is concerned) is to act in such a way that no roll is required at all because the player has removed uncertainty from the situation and just succeeds.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Hiya.

No. It doesn't. If you are seeing something I'm not, where?


There really is only one requirement...nobody can be looking at you (kind of like Invisible Boy from the Mystery Men movie/comic); as long as nobody sees you, you're good to go. And, seeing as he's invisible, nobody can see him.


Yup. He can use Cunning Action on his own turn, as his bonus action, to Hide.

***WARNING!! SEMI-RANT BELOW!!!***


This ol' chestnut... *again*!?

Dudes and Dude'etts, it's really simple. Roleplay the situation first. Think about it. Imagine it. Now, if the situation makes sense that he could "hide", then he can at least try. If it doesn't, then this is all moot because any DM (and player) worth his salt would (one would hope) be smart enough to realize that and nix the whole "hiding" thing right then and there. It's a ROLEPLAYING game for cryin' out loud! It's not rocket science. It's not a court hearing. It's not marital vows. Hell, it's not even a *boardgame*. An RPG, and 5e is no exception, is a set of GUIDELINES for how to run a game set in your imagination with your imagination as the limits, presented in a book as rules.

I know some groups are really into the whole RAW-as-Gospel thing, but for those groups, as I said when 5e just came out (PDF Basic)...maybe 5e isn't for them. Just like if I wanted a realistic, heavy-historical based game I wouldn't choose 5e. If I was looking for a crazy, fast-playing, quick post apocalyptic game, I wouldn't choose Living Steel.

*phew!* I feel better now. Thanks for listening, and sorry if I offended anyone.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

On the one hand, I agree with you, as I encourage players to at least perform the "think as your characters would" portion of Roleplaying (though many of them are still getting used to the "Act" as your character would portion). On the other hand, I can't help but feel that down this way lies madness. The rules aren't supposed to be a straitjacket that limits what we can achieve in game, but they are supposed to be a system by which we understand what sorts of actions we can perform in game. Wanting there to be clear guidelines on when we can make a Hide check isn't asking much, especially considering how often Rogue players will be asking to make a Hide check.

If we go too heavily into "feel" about each individual scene, then you're going to get a lot of players who might perceive the situation differently than you calling for Hide checks all the time, thinking there's shadows where there aren't any, that they can't be seen behind the big stack of boxes, etc. I think It's unfair to call players who ask for such checks "not worth their salt" or "not smart enough" just because they have to ask when they're able to use the Stealth skill. Every group is different, and no matter how tightly we might feel we have a handle on the rules ourselves, when you play with a big group of players, a few of them still might be hazy on minute details.

I won't fault people for wanting there to be explicit clauses in the Hide rules that state when you can use the Hide action, and when you can't. Then again, I prefer clearer rules when it comes to base skill uses, because often I have trouble dealing with players who constantly use a "DM may I" style during their turns because they aren't sure how skills work. Unfortunately, I have some players that try to negotiate on skill checks, but that just gives me insight into knowing not all players pick up on roleplay cues quite so easy. I wouldn't call any of them not smart enough. In fact their intelligence is probably the issue when they try to convince me a situation should allow a skill use I hadn't anticipated.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

On the one hand, I agree with you, as I encourage players to at least perform the "think as your characters would" portion of Roleplaying (though many of them are still getting used to the "Act" as your character would portion). On the other hand, I can't help but feel that down this way lies madness. The rules aren't supposed to be a straitjacket that limits what we can achieve in game, but they are supposed to be a system by which we understand what sorts of actions we can perform in game. Wanting there to be clear guidelines on when we can make a Hide check isn't asking much, especially considering how often Rogue players will be asking to make a Hide check.

If we go too heavily into "feel" about each individual scene, then you're going to get a lot of players who might perceive the situation differently than you calling for Hide checks all the time, thinking there's shadows where there aren't any, that they can't be seen behind the big stack of boxes, etc. I think It's unfair to call players who ask for such checks "not worth their salt" or "not smart enough" just because they have to ask when they're able to use the Stealth skill. Every group is different, and no matter how tightly we might feel we have a handle on the rules ourselves, when you play with a big group of players, a few of them still might be hazy on minute details.

I won't fault people for wanting there to be explicit clauses in the Hide rules that state when you can use the Hide action, and when you can't. Then again, I prefer clearer rules when it comes to base skill uses, because often I have trouble dealing with players who constantly use a "DM may I" style during their turns because they aren't sure how skills work. Unfortunately, I have some players that try to negotiate on skill checks, but that just gives me insight into knowing not all players pick up on roleplay cues quite so easy. I wouldn't call any of them not smart enough. In fact their intelligence is probably the issue when they try to convince me a situation should allow a skill use I hadn't anticipated.

Overall, I think I agree with you as well. I think where we part ways is in experience. You're gaming experience differs from mine in that a player will almost always say something like: Crap! He's on a horse, riding up the road towards me? 60' away? Hmmmm...it's been raining a while, I'll drop to the ground and roll into the ditch so maybe he won't see me. The player will almost never say something like: Crap! He's on a horse, 60' away. I'll try and make a Stealth check to hide in the ditch. The key differences are that the players in my game tend to ask and/or confirm the situation, then make a choice. The trust me with the details of determine their characters chance of success. This usually does result in some sort of roll, unless it's waaaaay in favor (or not) of the action. Then I just decide success/failure and the outcome of it.

I'm of the firm opinion that it's the DM who is in charge of everything other than the choices the player makes for his character. If I just "let" players decide when and what dice check to roll for some situation then I'm not doing my job (additionally, it makes my job harder to do). I get to/have to run the world and everything in it...sans PC's. A player who just picks up his d20, rolls, and blurts out "I got a 27 on my Survival check, so I know if I need to pack an umbrella today. So do I?" will be in for a rude awakening later on in the day I can tell you that. In that case, the player is trying to "assume control of the world". I don't "assume control of his PC", so I expect the same courtesy from them. Now, that isn't to say that regular, standard rolls don't go on like this (re: combat, or other situations that have become standard for our group), that's fine and dandy. It's just when a player decides to make some roll, tells me the total, and then tries to tell me what that roll means...well, that just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it's just my acute case of Curmudgeonly Grognarditis, but, to quote a wise, old, raspy voiced, bug-eyed guy...Yup...that's a paddlin.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Hiya!



Overall, I think I agree with you as well. I think where we part ways is in experience. You're gaming experience differs from mine in that a player will almost always say something like: Crap! He's on a horse, riding up the road towards me? 60' away? Hmmmm...it's been raining a while, I'll drop to the ground and roll into the ditch so maybe he won't see me. The player will almost never say something like: Crap! He's on a horse, 60' away. I'll try and make a Stealth check to hide in the ditch. The key differences are that the players in my game tend to ask and/or confirm the situation, then make a choice. The trust me with the details of determine their characters chance of success. This usually does result in some sort of roll, unless it's waaaaay in favor (or not) of the action. Then I just decide success/failure and the outcome of it.

I'm of the firm opinion that it's the DM who is in charge of everything other than the choices the player makes for his character. If I just "let" players decide when and what dice check to roll for some situation then I'm not doing my job (additionally, it makes my job harder to do). I get to/have to run the world and everything in it...sans PC's. A player who just picks up his d20, rolls, and blurts out "I got a 27 on my Survival check, so I know if I need to pack an umbrella today. So do I?" will be in for a rude awakening later on in the day I can tell you that. In that case, the player is trying to "assume control of the world". I don't "assume control of his PC", so I expect the same courtesy from them. Now, that isn't to say that regular, standard rolls don't go on like this (re: combat, or other situations that have become standard for our group), that's fine and dandy. It's just when a player decides to make some roll, tells me the total, and then tries to tell me what that roll means...well, that just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it's just my acute case of Curmudgeonly Grognarditis, but, to quote a wise, old, raspy voiced, bug-eyed guy...Yup...that's a paddlin.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Experience could definitely be the deciding factor, as could players involved. I'm still trying to get my players into the habit of describing how they react to a situation, or the actions they take, not what skill they use or spell (they're getting better, but I much prefer hearing "I raise my hand and launch three bolts of magical force at my foe," to "I cast magic missile").

In situations where Stealth comes up, I think your style works just fine, and certainly feels more in the spirit of invested roleplay with the campaign world. I've been telling my players that the less often I hear them actually use the terminology for spells, attacks, abilities, and skill checks, the better. I prefer to try and DM more like yourself and iserith, where they state what their character does, then I decide if there's a skill check involved, if they automatically succeed, fail, or something in between.

Hopefully if I keep at it, eventually my players will respond as yours do and narrate actions, not mechanics. Still, as of right now, I can emphasize with any poster that talks about liking clear rules so their players know when a check is likely possible or not. Sometimes it can feel a bit depowering as a player if you don't have an understanding of how the rules work in your favor, and instead must rely on your DM telling you what you can do every time.

I think its honestly just different expectations and past experiences. I imagine a player who changes gaming groups and used to play with a DM that was a RAW advocate and required players to always state what skill/rule they're using, etc, might have trouble with 5E's proposed style of "Rulings not Rules" if they join a new group with a much more fluid DM who prefers statements before even deciding if a skill/rule is involved.

 

[iserith]

Nobody plays by RAW - it's impossible to do so because RAW can't cover every situation that comes up in the game. So don't let any of those RAW types fool you. RAW is only useful for saying what is or isn't in a rulebook. In practice, the game is about choices the players make and what the DM rules in response to that. Some DMs will call for a lot of rolls. Other DMs will call for very few if any. I advocate the middle path where sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail, and sometimes you roll the dice. This is incidentally the only approach with regard to the role of the dice in the game that the DMG identifies as having no drawbacks.

For my part, I ask players to simply state what they want to do fictionally, making sure their goal and approach clear is, then wait for my response. I tell them to not ask questions of the DM; rather, they should made declarations or take actions (e.g. "Are there any doors in the room?" should be "I look around for doors."). I also tell them not to ask to roll dice or to roll dice without me asking.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

For my part, I ask players to simply state what they want to do fictionally, making sure their goal and approach clear is, then wait for my response. I tell them to not ask questions of the DM; rather, they should made declarations or take actions (e.g. "Are there any doors in the room?" should be "I look around for doors."). I also tell them not to ask to roll dice or to roll dice without me asking.

Yeah, this part specifically is what I'm working towards as well. I feel that when players keep asking to roll skill checks, or ask me too many questions, especially rule questions mid game, they keep putting themselves in too much of a game mindset and aren't able to really invest themselves in the fiction. Some of my favorite sessions are times when the players asked little to no questions, and narrated their actions without declaring skills or abilities or spells. It starts to feel like you're all taking part in creating a living story together, and that's a pretty cool feeling

 

[Coredump]

why can't I find the 'delete' button...

 

[Coredump]

There really is only one requirement...nobody can be looking at you (kind of like Invisible Boy from the Mystery Men movie/comic); as long as nobody sees you, you're good to go.

Man... I have been saying this for awhile now... and keep getting the internet equivalent of a blank stare....