Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7218314" data-attributes="member: 6857506">You seem to assume that combat strength is the only thing that contributes to viability.&nbsp; You are free to judge it that way, but I think there is a lot more to character viability than combat strength.Also you refer to the rogue &quot;without his sneak&quot; as if someone had suggested that sneak attack should be disallowed.&nbsp; Since they haven't, this comment seems to be not very relevant.As a more general comment, I sympathize with your desire to run your game &quot;right&quot; according to the rules.&nbsp; Sometimes when you bring a rules question to this forum you can get a pretty broad consensus (though very rarely unanimity <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />) on what is RAW and/or RAI.&nbsp; However, 5e leaves a lot up to the DM, so frequently you'll get a range of opinion.&nbsp; And then there are few subjects such as hiding in which the rules are heavily seeded with ambiguity, and so interpretations vary widely.So, particularly with respect to running a D&amp;D 5e game, and especially when it comes to hiding, it is not necessary that folks doing it differently from you be wrong in order for you to be right.&nbsp; You can let your rogues pop in and out of hiding all day long and that is fine.&nbsp; But a game in which conditions for being able to hide are ruled more strictly ruled can be just as RAW as yours, and even if their DPR is a little less, rogues are perfectly viable there.Finally, IMO it is best to be very conservative about is claims of RAW-ness.&nbsp; Don't claim something is RAW unless it is stated unambiguously and not contradicted elsewhere.&nbsp; Otherwise, your ideas start to look like they are only supported by sketchy appeals to authority.&nbsp; If it's just your preferred interpretation, better to label it as such and move on to examining the consequences of its adoption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7218314, member: 6857506"] You seem to assume that combat strength is the only thing that contributes to viability. You are free to judge it that way, but I think there is a lot more to character viability than combat strength. Also you refer to the rogue "without his sneak" as if someone had suggested that sneak attack should be disallowed. Since they haven't, this comment seems to be not very relevant. As a more general comment, I sympathize with your desire to run your game "right" according to the rules. Sometimes when you bring a rules question to this forum you can get a pretty broad consensus (though very rarely unanimity :erm:) on what is RAW and/or RAI. However, 5e leaves a lot up to the DM, so frequently you'll get a range of opinion. And then there are few subjects such as hiding in which the rules are heavily seeded with ambiguity, and so interpretations vary widely. So, particularly with respect to running a D&D 5e game, and especially when it comes to hiding, it is not necessary that folks doing it differently from you be wrong in order for you to be right. You can let your rogues pop in and out of hiding all day long and that is fine. But a game in which conditions for being able to hide are ruled more strictly ruled can be just as RAW as yours, and even if their DPR is a little less, rogues are perfectly viable there. Finally, IMO it is best to be very conservative about is claims of RAW-ness. Don't claim something is RAW unless it is stated unambiguously and not contradicted elsewhere. Otherwise, your ideas start to look like they are only supported by sketchy appeals to authority. If it's just your preferred interpretation, better to label it as such and move on to examining the consequences of its adoption. [/QUOTE]

Verification