D&D 5E Things that "need" errata

[Flamestrike]

That rule is very specific to approaching a creature.

By RAW a Rogue can hide behind a barrel each round, and provided his stealth check is high enough (very likely), he gains advantage on that attack. Over and over.

Most DMs choose to house rule that, and that's a good indication for a candidate for errata.

He attacks from hiding (with advantage). Once the attack is resolved (hit or miss, unless he has the skulker feat), he is no longer hidden and every creature in the room can see him now (and importantly - now know where he is).

As he is now observed, and his location is now known, he cannot go back into hiding behind that barrel.

A monster is not going to suddenly forget he's there if he pops back behind the barrel. He will have total cover or concealment though if he ducks back down. Seeing as the monster saw where he went (watched him duck back behind the barrel) he cannot hide in that spot.

The problem with hiding isnt the rules. Its a problem with people trying to read the hiding sidebar in the rules as 'RAW' when its not, and people not applying common sense (which the rules clearly infer you to do).

If someone knows where you are, you're not hidden from them. Why this trips people up. I'll never get.

 

[DaveDash]

He attacks from hiding (with advantage). Once the attack is resolved (hit or miss, unless he has the skulker feat), he is no longer hidden and every creature in the room can see him now (and importantly - now know where he is).

As he is now observed, and his location is now known, he cannot go back into hiding behind that barrel.

Actually yes he can. He can break off LOS depending on the size of the barrel and become heavily obscured. Or, what's more common, is just moving back and forward behind a dungeon wall/corner.

A monster is not going to suddenly forget he's there if he pops back behind the barrel. He will have total cover or concealment though if he ducks back down. Seeing as the monster saw where he went (watched him duck back behind the barrel) he cannot hide in that spot.

The problem with hiding isnt the rules. Its a problem with people trying to read the hiding sidebar in the rules as 'RAW' when its not, and people not applying common sense (which the rules clearly infer you to do).

If someone knows where you are, you're not hidden from them. Why this trips people up. I'll never get.

This is a house rule. Nothing in the rules state this.

The Rogue in my group argued that the monster could easily be distracted with all the combat going on, and unless the monster is spending an action to focus on where the Rogue player is, the Rogue player can hide and snipe.

We argued that's factored in sneak attack damage already, he argued otherwise. Common sense is different to different people.

I understand you cannot have rules for everything, and that in 5e the DM needs to divorce him/herself from RAW. 5e is all about this, which becomes more clear after reading stuff online from the designers (and hanging around in forums).

But it was a very hard pill to swallow when we first came to this edition, and I am still not convinced it's the best way. I've seen some terrible rulings on streams from DM's who use the whole "rulings not rules!" thing to their favor.

 

[Flamestrike]

The problem is not strictly Fighter vs Warlock, although I still feel EB + Agnonizing Blast is still too strong. The Warlock also can take sharpshooter, or 1 level fighter dip for better AC and Archery Fighting Style.

Sharpshooter doesn't work with EB's.

And if we are talking dips, then our Fighter can take a 3 level dip into Ranger for hunters mark and colossus slayer (adding +1d6 to all his attacks, and an extra +1d8 damage per round) to well and truly leapfrog anything the Warlock can do.

A Human BladeLock (Fighter/Warlock) with Polearm Master and Warcaster can be a better fighter than the fighter (He can do 2xEB + AB most rounds), and still excel in the Social and Exploration pillar of the game. He/She can even easily get over their main hindrance - lack of dark vision.

I partly agree here. Fighters OA's need pimping.

Are you aware that Polearm masters OA has been ruled by the Dev's to only occur with the actual weapon?

Josh Smith @Rick___Deckard

@mikemearls Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?

​

Follow
Mike Mearls @mikemearls

@Rick___Deckard No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack
12:32 AM - 17 Sep 2014

​

http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/polearm/

There's your RAI for you.

 

[Flamestrike]

Actually yes he can. He can break off LOS depending on the size of the barrel and become heavily obscured. Or, what's more common, is just moving back and forward behind a dungeon wall/corner.

Youre reading it wrong. The problem is with your interpretation and not with the rule.

When it talks about 'hiding' in the sidebar it refers to the common sense, plain English meaning of hiding. Like how you and I would talk about it, and not not in game terms.

'You cant hide from a creature that can see you' Means what it means in real life. As in: If you and I are standing in an empty room with a box in the middle of the room, you cannot step into the box while I watch you, close the lid and be hidden from me. I know exactly where you are.

Its a statement of common sense, not a 'gamist' term I.e. it does not mean - (Your turn; Move; break LOS; take Hide action).

This is where you're getting tripped up.

This is a house rule. Nothing in the rules state this.

Yes it does bro. The term 'hidden' means 'I dont know where you are'.

Try and play hide and seek against someone who watches you hide in a box and see how far you get.

The Rogue in my group argued that the monster could easily be distracted with all the combat going on, and unless the monster is spending an action to focus on where the Rogue player is, the Rogue player can hide and snipe.

Which is a fair enough thing to suggest. But he doesnt tell the DM what the monsters can or cannot perceive. You're (as the DM) free to rule that the monster was too busy watching other PC's to notice where the Rogue was when he attacked (although the rules are clear that you do notice him once the attack is resolved). I'd probably rule the same in a large set piece battle, possibly allowing the rogue to attempt to reenter hiding at disadvantage once or twice.

Of course, I sure as hell wouldn't miss the fact someone fired a crossbow bolt into my leg, especially if it was done with sneak attack for 20 odd points of damage.

We argued that's factored in sneak attack damage already, he argued otherwise.

Youre the DM. Apply common sense and make a ruling. Move on with the game. The player shrugs and accepts it, or he spits the dummy, and takes his bat and ball and goes home. You're generally better off without players who want to argue about a rule for hours anyway in my view. He did it at a sporting event, and he'd be sent off. He did it at a friendly sporting event, and he'd lose friends pretty quick.

The rules for hiding are left (expressly, not that you needed it) to a DM's call on what is hidden. Thats the rule. The dude behind the screen determines when something is hidden (as it requires subjective knowledge on the part of the creature in question, which is something a player cannot control).

For what it's worth, total cover doesn't make something hidden, nor does even invisibility.

A wizard who casts invisibility can still be targeted with attacks till he takes the Hide action (which the invisible condition expressly allows him to do at all times).

A Wood elf (or a creature with the skulker feat) can Hide in heavy rain (as long as no-one is watching them make the attempt). They could literally enter an empty sports stadium during the day, and hide in the pouring rain in the middle of the field. Later that day, (as long as their stealth check is high enough) they can remain hidden in the middle of the field (in the rain) as the stadium fills up. Play would go on around them as if they weren't there. As soon as they attack (or otherwise reveal themselves) they cant then re-enter hiding. The stadium spectators are now watching them.

It's just a common sense thing mate. If a creature knows where you are (and theyre objectively right about it), you are not hidden from them. It's no different from you hiding something in your room. Unless you forget where you put the thing you hid, it's not hidden from you (even though you cant see it anymore). It's hidden from everyone else though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I have to say that I haven't experienced any issues with the Stealth rules so far. I don't think they need any fixing. I definitely don't want to see something as complex and convoluted as either of 4e's attempts at writing rules for Stealth.

Have a look at the chase rules in the DMG. If you use the Dash action more than your allotted number of times, you have to start making Con checks to avoid accruing exhaustion levels. Getting five levels of exhaustion doesn't kill you, though, and you can get rid of all the exhaustion after a short rest. This is very much treating exhaustion like being winded.

The DMG rules for Dashing in a chase are pretty whacked in terms of how fast/far they let you run. I wouldn't use them for anyone but octogenarians with asthma.

 

[77IM]

I don't. Switching weapons mid-combat is something that takes time and is tactically meaningful. You want to drop your bow and draw your sword, sure, I'll go for that... but once you move and need your bow, you have to go back and pick it up.

That's my point: you like it one way, and every DM I've ever played with has done it a different way (to be honest, my sample size is only 6), so the rules language should explicitly allow for DM discretion here instead of a hard-and-fast limitation. That way, at your table, you can say, "I scarcely ever allow multiple free object interactions in a round," and at my table I can say, "Yeah, interact with whatever objects you want, I don't care," and at some other table, the DM might have some other guideline that is somewhere in between. The advantage of explicitly calling for DM discretion is that the player will not know what to expect and so will have that conversation with the DM up front, which I think is valuable because of how frequently I see DMs house-rule it.

 

[pukunui]

The DMG rules for Dashing in a chase are pretty whacked in terms of how fast/far they let you run. I wouldn't use them for anyone but octogenarians with asthma.

Perhaps. But that's beside the point. I was merely pointing out that there is an example in the rules already where exhaustion is treated as both non-lethal and temporary.

 

[DaveDash]

Youre reading it wrong. The problem is with your interpretation and not with the rule.

When it talks about 'hiding' in the sidebar it refers to the common sense, plain English meaning of hiding. Like how you and I would talk about it, and not not in game terms.

'You cant hide from a creature that can see you' Means what it means in real life. As in: If you and I are standing in an empty room with a box in the middle of the room, you cannot step into the box while I watch you, close the lid and be hidden from me. I know exactly where you are.

Its a statement of common sense, not a 'gamist' term I.e. it does not mean - (Your turn; Move; break LOS; take Hide action).

Your example though is not what happens in game. Lets talk in plain english. In game there is combat, it's chaotic, it's quite a reasonable argument that the monsters don't even know where the arrows are coming from at all.

This is why you have rules, so that players and DM alike have consistency in the world around them. Otherwise every combat becomes a glorified version of cops and robbers.

Yes it does bro. The term 'hidden' means 'I dont know where you are'.

Try and play hide and seek against someone who watches you hide in a box and see how far you get.

Your example is absurd. But besides all that, even in an absurd example, D&D is still a game. Men running around shooting fireballs out their fingertips is equally as absurd as a Rogue being hidden from within a box in an empty room, but both are RAW. The Rogue player in question also argued that this is a class feature, citing the very clear RAW example of a Halfling hiding behind his comrades and gaining enough cover to stealth (which I find personally equally absurd). But it's there, in the books, and the player has the right to argue it.

Youre the DM. Apply common sense and make a ruling. Move on with the game. The player shrugs and accepts it, or he spits the dummy, and takes his bat and ball and goes home. You're generally better off without players who want to argue about a rule for hours anyway in my view. He did it at a sporting event, and he'd be sent off. He did it at a friendly sporting event, and he'd lose friends pretty quick.

This player is a long time friend and a great player. He thought he was acting within the rules, but the rules were stupid, so the DM house ruled the rules away. Our group would be much worse off without him.

The whole thing however did cause a large argument between all of us. And we're not the only one, based on the massive arguments about this all over different forums, streams, etc.

Stuff about common sense.

No it's not. It's about mechanics and class features. We're playing a game, where many things defy common sense and logic.

If you used common sense to make all rulings in D&D, you might as well throw out the PHB and start again, because you're playing a different game, like GURPS. D&D is all about doing things that are heroic, magical, and fantastical.

Players have the right to expect what is in the rulebook is the "contract" of the game, and vague badly written rules are a recipe for arguments over contract, just like what happens in real life.

The designers clearly attempted to put same game like rules in there, but still tried to keep it vague enough to fit many situations. Wrong approach IMO.

In fact stealth rules should just be this:

"You can attempt to make a stealth check to say hidden from your enemies, the DM determines whether you are hidden or not, and may decide to grant you advantage on your next attack roll".

Job done.

 

[Flamestrike]

Your example though is not what happens in game. Lets talk in plain english. In game there is combat, it's chaotic, it's quite a reasonable argument that the monsters don't even know where the arrows are coming from at all.

And someone properly trained (the Skulker feat) can fire at someone from hiding all day long (and as long as they keep missing) can remain hidden while doing so.

Your argument though boils down to what I've been urging you to do. Apply common sense to the situation. If a monster knows where you are, you cant hide from it. If it doesnt, you can try.

This is why you have rules, so that players and DM alike have consistency in the world around them. Otherwise every combat becomes a glorified version of cops and robbers.

There is consistency, as long as the DM is consistent. You don't need rules to be consistent (in fact this is impossible with any rule that requires interpretation... which is every single rule!); you need a consistent DM.

Your example is absurd.

It's no more absurd that a Rogue popping in and out of a barrel, shooting someone, and claiming to be hidden once he ducks back down. He's not 'hidden' in any sense of the word.

But besides all that, even in an absurd example, D&D is still a game. Men running around shooting fireballs out their fingertips is equally as absurd as a Rogue being hidden from within a box in an empty room, but both are RAW.

No, they're not. Youre reading a plain English explanation of hiding as a rule.

Try reading the phrase 'You cant hide when someone is watching you' as if you read it in a story or a book, or via a conversation with a person outside of a DnD gamist/ turn based/ rules interpretation.

Apply subjective real world common sense to it, and stop reading it as an objective 'in game' rule.

The Rogue player in question also argued that this is a class feature, citing the very clear RAW example of a Halfling hiding behind his comrades and gaining enough cover to stealth (which I find personally equally absurd). But it's there, in the books, and the player has the right to argue it.

But Halfling Rogues can hide behind comrades. They just cant do it when someone is watching them.

The Halfling can hide behind Harry the fighter before Harry opens the door to the room. Once Harry opens the door he spots 5 Orcs. Harry steps into the room (with the Halfling following him) and demands the Orcs surrender. As long as the Orcs passive perception doesnt beat the Halflings Stealth check they dont notice the Halfling.

Assume the negotiations end badly after a few seconds and hostilities break out. On the Halflings turn he can pop out from behind Harry and shoot an Orc in the face (with advantage). But after he makes that attack (barring him also having the Skulker feat) his location and position are known. The Orcs notice him now (finally) and he is no longer hidden. He now can not attempt to Hide again as the Orcs are aware of his presence and are observing him (listening for and watching him).

If our Halfling buddy had the Skulker feat and missed with the attack, he would not reveal his position and would remain in hiding until he hit (or otherwise revealed his position). Once he does though, the gig is up and he cannot normally attempt to Hide again.

This player is a long time friend and a great player. He thought he was acting within the rules, but the rules were stupid, so the DM house ruled the rules away. Our group would be much worse off without him.

The rules are not stupid, they're just a reflection of common sense.

Hiding means that the enemy doesn't know where you are. They are not aware of your presence with sufficient precision. Obviously if they watch you go into your hiding spot, the enemy (generally) know exactly where you are, and you are not hidden.

Again. You and I are in a room with a box. Our friend Steve is waiting outside (he doesnt know who is in the room). I crawl into the box and close the lid and take the hide action, rolling my steath check. You then go and open the door to let Steve in the room.

I am hidden from Steve (assuming I beat his passive perception to avoid making any noise in the box) once he enters the room. He has no idea I am in there. I am not hidden from you however - you know exactly where I am.

I am discovered by Steve (and no longer hidden) if any of the following things happen:

• You tell Steve where I am
• My stealth check is lower than Steves passive perception (I accidentally cough or, a bit of my clothes are sticking out or whatever)
• Steve starts searching for me (uses an action to makes an active perception check that beats vs my steath score)
• Steve opens the box and finds me automatically.
• I intentionally make a noise, or pop out of the box (although I get a free attack on Steve at advantage if I do so, and if I have Skulker and miss with my attack, I can pop back in before he notices me)

If you used common sense to make all rulings in D&D, you might as well throw out the PHB and start again, because you're playing a different game, like GURPS. D&D is all about doing things that are heroic, magical, and fantastical.

Yeah. And a Wood Elf (or someone with the Skulker feat) can literally hide in heavy rain in the middle of an empty football stadium. They would remain hidden once the stadium filled up with 10,000 spectators, and play began on the game. Players could walk right past them without noticing them. They could swing a sword at those players over and over and over again, and (unless they hit the player revealing themselves) no-one in that stadium would know they were there (unless someone actively searched for them, and beat thier stealth check with an active perception check, or one of the people present had a really high passive perception score and pointed you out to everyone)

That's pretty magical and fantastical.

Players have the right to expect what is in the rulebook is the "contract" of the game, and vague badly written rules are a recipe for arguments over contract, just like what happens in real life.

Take owndership of your game man, and explain to your players thats how it is. Every single rule that has ever been written is subject to subjective interpretation. RAW doesnt exist as a thing in and of itself. I dont want to get too postmodern on you, but thats the reality.

Maybe we have different exceptions of our friends, but if I organised and then umpired a friendly game of cricket (or baseball), and ruled a mate of mine out LBW (or struck him out) and he whinged about it for over an hour afterwards, we probably wouldnt be friends for very long.

 

[DaveDash]

And someone properly trained (the Skulker feat) can fire at someone from hiding all day long (and as long as they keep missing) can remain hidden while doing so.

Your argument though boils down to what I've been urging you to do. Apply common sense to the situation. If a monster knows where you are, you cant hide from it. If it doesnt, you can try.

If I applied common sense to every situation, then Wizards would not be able to cast fireballs from their fingertips. The whole point in class mechanics is that they defy logic and common sense.

Besides that, the players argument is still valid. In the chaos of combat a monster may not even know where the arrow came from, let alone be able to focus on the Rogue firing it.

It's no more absurd that a Rogue popping in and out of a barrel, shooting someone, and claiming to be hidden once he ducks back down. He's not 'hidden' in any sense of the word.

He sure is hidden if the monsters is distracted by the huge raging Barbarian in it's face.

No, they're not. Youre reading a plain English explanation of hiding as a rule.

Try reading the phrase 'You cant hide when someone is watching you' as if you read it in a story or a book, or via a conversation with a person outside of a DnD gamist/ turn based/ rules interpretation.

But it is a rule, because the designers attempted at creating mechanics around it. It's not a plain English phrase.

But Halfling Rogues can hide behind comrades. They just cant do it when someone is watching them.

That's your interpretation of the rules. The Rogue player still has a valid argument that they are not watching, they're focused on the raging Barbarian with the huge battle axe. DM disagrees, argument ensures.

In fact "Watching" the Rogue is covered in rules by them spending their action to find a hidden creature.

Hiding means that the enemy doesn't know where you are. They are not aware of your presence with sufficient precision. Obviously if they watch you go into your hiding spot, the enemy (generally) know exactly where you are, and you are not hidden.

Again, your interpretation of the rules, one I agree with, but one that can also be argued against. And there is no rule to fall back on, so it comes down to cops and robbers again.

Weird Steve Example

I have my own idea on how stealth works, and it's very similar to yours. You seem to be missing the point however that a vague rule like this causes arguments at the table.

The designers either should have gone all-in and made a better rule set for stealth, or gone even more vague like my example in my edited post above.

The ways the rules are written right now puts the expectation on the players that it still is a game mechanic, instead of something completely in the DM's hands.