Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9593890" data-attributes="member: 7037866">I know what you mean but I disagree slightly with the way you said it. You can attempt to Hide whenever you want, you just have to meet the criteria. If you have Heavy Obscurement, "cover", and within no enemy's line of sight.Another point why I think this is a bit ridiculous. What if an enemy is hiding from you so you cannot see them, can you still try to hide? According to the rule, no, but what does the DM tell you?Player: I'm going to Hide behind that tree.DM: You can't.Player: Why not?DM: Because you can't. You can move behind the tree, but you can't take the Hide action right now.Player: Umm... ok... looks to other players quizzicallyThis goes back to my point. IRL unless you screw up when you attempt to Hide you always think (or hope at least) you are hidden.Now, in many cases the player will certainly know a creature can see them, in which case "hiding" is futile and they are, at best, simple moving into Heavy Obscurement or "cover".Which brings up the issue of Darkvision. You move to Heavy Obscurement, so think you can Hide eventhough you can see an enemy, but without Darkvision they cannot see you since you are Heavily Obscured. But, little do you know that enemy has Darkvision and can see you. So, the DM tells the player "Sorry, you cannot Hide," which makes no sense to the player because their character should think they can Hide and should be able to take the Hide action.I mean, you would think the penalty to Passive Perception would cover this, but until you successfully Hide, the creature can see you. I know how a DM can make a "ruling" on this, but do you understand why the RAW actually fails to cover such situations without tipping off to the player metagame information (at least)?IMO a PC should always be able to take the Hide action, it is just obvious that under many circumstances you would fail automatically.[ATTACH=full]397187[/ATTACH]Well, you could run it that way, certainly. However, this is why I think Passive Stealth should also be a thing. If you are moving at a slow pace and traveling "stealthily", use Passive Stealth with the idea of "repeated checks" average to 10 as the typical result.The DM should not then call for a check when the random encounter takes place. He already knows what their totals are. The problem, of course, then is the DC 15 requirement. Many PCs will not have a Passive Stealth at 15 or higher unless "stealth" is sort of a "thing" for the PC to normally do. This is another reason why the DC 15 is pointless. The DM will compare the total to any Perceptions when required (passive or otherwise) and know the result. By including the DC 15, the game is basically telling the player "Hey, you didn't make it, so assume you aren't hiding". In theory, I don't have a huge issue with this, just that DC 15 is definitely too high for it because until the "event occurs", the PC should not know behforehand if their efforts succeed or fail.Compare this to combat. In many games, if your total is 15 or better, there is a good chance to you hit (if you roll 15, it is practically a sure thing!). But what about a 12 or 13? Maybe. There are many creatures out there with more modest ACs. Likewise, there are many creatures with more modest Perceptions. To my mind the idea of the DC 15 is basically saying, "Ok, you don't think you've screwed up--hopefully nothing can see or hear you." But when 66% of the creatures have Passive Perceptions of 14 or lower, with DC 15 it isn't just you think you did it, in most cases you did and know it.In a weird way, they are making it harder to hide in general, but at the same time practically ensuring success if you make it. Maybe that was their goal? But anyway, let's ignore Passive Stealth for now since I don't know how many DMs would take advantage of using Passive checks for things other than Perception. Moving on...Calling for the Stealth check when the encounter happens. I think when you mean the DM calls for a check it is really the PCs "prior" action--i.e. their last Stealth total to help establish the current situation? Not, in fact, what they will be doing the first round? If so then that is perfectly good for this situation.I'm not sure this helps in other situations, though. I'll give it some thought.Also, thanks for the discussion so far. It helps to have someone to challange my thoughts about the RAW. For example, the DC 15 issue I think is so hiding is "harder" yet "easier" might have been their goal. I'm not a fan of it, but at least in that light it makes some sense.</blockquote>

Verification