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: 7218099" data-attributes="member: 6904821">Because they are different mechanics. How you fluff the mechanics in game is kinda up to you really. But I'd go with something like the enemy losing tracking. For the barb to grant that to the ally without the ally hiding, the barb would have to take the HELP (singular ally) action.Remember its about "perception" which is more than just "seeing".So anyway the rogue has used his action to hide (here is where the enemy loses tracking on the rogue), the barbarian then keeps the enemy busy, so as the rogue can come out of hiding and maintain their unseen status to that enemy whilst they approach the enemy.I'm not really sure what to say to you though, since it seems the issue is about you personally not thinking the mechanics make sense. Hopefully my fluff of the different situations above is enough to see how the different mechanics do make sense.At the end of the day, melee attacking an enemy doesnt (usually) give allies advantage, you need the help action to do that. We both agree these are the rules here.Also hiding and being an unseen attacker is another mechanic where you can advantage, we both agree here too, right?Now we also agree that if you are in hiding and MOVE towards an enemy in combat phase, with nothing to conceal your movement at all, then you are no longer unseen.So far its just all rules we all agree on.We could nitpick about how this all functions fluff wise - how do you describe/portray that as a DM, but we dont because mechanics come first and the fluff sticks to the mechanics. So we don't need to talk about how that is all possible.But the issue we are having is also clearly stated in the hide box in the rules as well; the DM can judge that the enemy is sufficiently distracted and so you do not lose your unseen attacker advantage.So the real question about fluff is how do you fluff up such a situation; Crawford says something about the enemy watching a play or something (he gives other examples), so anything that sufficiently grabs the enemies attention. The enemy is considered to always be tracking anyone he hasnt lost track of essentially, but he lost track of the hidden PC, so has the enemy  re-acquired the hidden PC - as he would normally if his attention wasnt elsewhere. If the hidden PC has moved out of the place that hid him, then the DM adjudicates. It seems to me that given Crawfords descriptions, the enemy wouldnt have re-acquired the hidden PC if he hid successfully in teh first place, since the barbarian is now needing his full attention.I mean are you just saying the DM should never or only in extreme cases judge the enemy doesnt re-acquire the hidden pc ? You are free to adjudicate in that way if you wish. The RAW / RAI specifically leaves that in the standard DM adjudication realm anyway. Listen to the podcast from Crawford explaining all this and judge yourself what you think is appropriate. My take is that maintaining unseen attacker status is pretty easy, a play will do it, an explosion down teh road will do it, a barb in the face? I think so also.</blockquote>

Verification