Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rodney Mulraney" data-source="post: 7217108" data-attributes="member: 6904821">The hiding mechanic has me feeling uneasy when I watch some games on youtube and how some DMs rule it. Since classes like the rogue use this as part of their fighting style, if a DM is "too strict" with hiding, then the DM has effectively nerfed that class.If I am playing 5e rules, I want to play them and not tinker with them, thinking I know better than the books. Any DM that "tinkers" without complete and overt player pre game acceptance is essentially doing something I feel is wrong. Players read the PHB and have certain expectations when they design their characters, and DMs that overrule that mid game seem to be nerfing a players character for no good reason. Unless a DM provides a mathematical proof for their "tinkering" I dont trust it anyway - and no one does that. It is mostly their own biased experiences that are hardly proper grounds for such rulings.The roleplaying aspect is silly as well, I think. I just watched a video of DMs describing how they nerf multiclassing, and the reason they give is that "it doesnt seem to fit". Roleplaying is optional for players, some players love it others not so much, penalising players that prefer to describe what their characters do, instead of roleplaying it, is just penalising a players character because you do not like they way the player plays the game, and its wrong, I think.When you penalise a player for not roleplaying, or being able to come up with a theme or backstory that fits, you just penalise them for the way they play the game, or you penalise their character because the player happens to lack imagination.When you penalise a player because you cannot think of a way to "make it all fit", you are penalising a player for your own lack of imagination.Believe me, there is always some kind of theme, backstory or fluff that can make anything fit, just because you happen to not be able to think of that fluff in the moment does not mean it is impossible. Impossibility is the stronger claim and needs the proof, the claim that there is some theme or fluff that would make it fit is the default.So WRT to hiding, the RAI seems pretty clear that as long the characters body is not perceivable, then the character can hide. Anything else is the DM thinking his own game that is based on D&D is better than D&D.Since when you hide you are not hidden; you instead roll stealth and the characters skill profs and dice decide if they are actually hidden or not. I think it is best to always let them hide, unless it really is impossible - brightly lit bare marble room, not that big, nothing to hide behind. The only person that will want to try to continually hide is the rogue (they are glass cannons, atleast, without the cannon bit they are just glass) and you shouldnt take that away from them, since without that they become severely nerfed.EDIT: its worth noting though, that being hidden is one thing, and being an unseen attacker with its advantage benefit is another. Team positional play can help there though, so mostly the rogue with a team who is playing to each others strengths should allow the rogue to get sneak attack most of the time, as long as they can hide alot.</blockquote>

Verification