Hey all,
first of all: I am really sorry for opening this thread, because I know there are almost plenty of them. And although I read them, I still have problems interpreting the rules of "hiding in combat".
I have a rogue with the skulker feat. So I am able to hide, even if I am only lightly obscured (e.g. some foliage, dim light, etc.).
Now let's take the following example:
- Rogue and two companions are fighting a few gnolls.
- Rogue is hiding behind a stone and shoots an arrow at one of the gnolls (having advantage because of hiding).
- Now he stabs back behind the stone and tries to re-hide again.
Questions:
- Is that possible even if the gnolls are looking somehow in the direction of the rogue (maybe being distracted because of fighting the rogues allies)?
- Will the rogue get advantage (and sneak attack) for his next turn?
- Does the rogue get disadvantage for the re-hiding check?
- Alternative: He doesn't go to hide behind the stone he was hiding before, but jumps into a copse near him (having the skulker feat). Does this change anything?
- Regardless of getting advantage: Does he get full cover for attacks against him (having the skulker feat)?
I hope, you can give me a better idea of how this works or maybe just some advices how you treat such situations with your group!
Would be glad about some answers!
Kind regards,
Peter
Sorrry Peter, but the rules are purposely flexible on this topic. They provide a framework for the DM to add to depending on what the exact situation and variables are. Almost all of the answers are 'it depends'.
p-touch wrote:
p-touch wrote:
p-touch wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Yunru wrote:
My current GM does not give me the unseen attacker bonus, so I mostly rely on there being an ally next to my target to get sneak attack (otherwise the rogue would be complete rubbish as soon as any GM does not grant the unseen attacker bonus).
At that point hiding doesn't even matter - just stand behind the rock to avoid return fire, as there is no advantage in attempting to hide.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
As a DM I do not give advantage to anyone who is just hiding behind a rock/pillar/whatever in the middle of combat. The monster knows where you are, you are not hidden. You already have full cover which means you cannot be targeted by spells or attacks which is more than enough of a benefit.
If there is some way to move in cover to another location then maybe, but just bouncing in and out of cover is not enough to grant advantage.
I do allow Halfings to hide behind other creatures but only for the defensive benefits of hiding and not offensive. Skulking also gets to hide in dim light, but only when it makes sense and not vanishing 10 feet from a monster.
The point of the Skulker feat seems to be that you can hide in situations where you are lightly obscured, so whether or not something is looking at you shouldn't matter. IMO, you should determine if you are indeed lightly obscured, and if you are, a stealth roll opposed by a passive perception (or active, if someone spends an action looking for you) will determine if you are hidden.
The general rule (you can't hide from a creature that can see you) seems to be overridden by the specific rule (you can hide from a creature when you are lightly obscured). Questions about whether you have advantage et al. resolve themselves once you figure out if you're hidden, or they seem to for me.
In your first example, the rogue is using cover to hide, so the Skulker feat won't do anything. Your DM will rule whether you can duck back into cover and make another hide check (though I can't see why you couldn't).
In your alternate scenario, he leaps behind a copse of trees and could benefit from the Skulker feat assuming the foliage is moderate or higher (another DM call - don't try this in the winter!) Another scenario that would work is being in dim light. In that situation you could hide, attack, and then hide again, providing you were still in dim light. I suspect the pushback against a rogue being able to hide comes from previous editions where they were more powerful. With this balanced game, letting a rogue use his sneak attack isn't a game breaker. Indeed, if you find too many ways to deny it, his damage output is severely underwhelming.
sudsboy wrote:
I think that's what most GM's are concerned about - advantage.
Because for example, a cleric can heal and hit.
While rogues can heal and hit and then you'd be giving them advantage as well!
Oh wait, rogues don't have some second line of powers like healing or throwing fireballs - the problem is GM's probably think advantage is just too crazy powerful to give to a player, when actually it's relatively balanced compared to what powers other classes have.
So the rogue gets unofficially nerfed.
Jumuraa wrote:
The only motivations against not letting the rouge hide in the same spot over and over are realism and nerfbat.
If the gnolls are to daft to not do something active to stop the rogue,then let him stab away
. If the gnolls use resources (move, action,etc) to counter the rogue then the rogue may need to change tactics. Sneaking is what rogues so they shouldn't be punished for it
Thankfully the game has moved away from super tactical and crunchy, it means the players must think differently and not try to abuse and squeeze game options till they bleed
Yunru wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I read this thread because I've been a bit confused....or maybe not confused but unsure...of the stealth rules, and what the impact of Wood Elf, Lightfoot Halfling, and Skulker feat are.
Reading the arguments above, and looking at RAW, it seems to me that rogues can in fact re-stealth during combat if they meet the requisite conditions. The main argument against it is the "realism" one: if the gnolls know you're standing behind the rock, or behind your half-orc companion, it seems improbable/impossible that you could hide from them. My reactions to this are:
1) Rogues already do the "impossible" with their stealth skill. There is no rule that says "must have shadows or objects to hide behind." A rogue can stealth through an empty ballroom if he makes the roll.
2) In some ways this re-open up the argument...fiercly debated during the Next playtest...about whether Fighter maneuvers like "Cleave" were magical or not. But certainly many/most/all of the classes have abilities that cannot be explained by logic and physics; so I don't see anything wrong in a fantasy game of letting high stealth rolls amount to the same thing.
3) For a non-magical explanation, I'm thinking about those tricks we've all seen done...and sometimes even done ourselves...of tapping somebody on the shoulder, then moving the opposite way they turn, then changing direction when they do, so that the person whose shoulder was tapped cannot see the person who did it. So "stealth" is partly hiding behind things, but partly about avoiding others' field of vision. So in our scenarios...yeah, the gnolls know you're behind the rock, and when they run up to get you they have to go one way or the other, and the rogue...being really good at this stuff...goes the other way and gets around behind the gnoll again. Similarly, he's hiding behind the half-orc, and he knows just when to dart around so that the enemy is distracted and doesn't notice. Distractions (i.e. combat) are just as useful as cover...once you're already out of view.
4) As for whether it's "broken" to give rogues advantage every round, as other posters have pointed out some feats and skills (Shield Master, monk abilities, certain spells) can give Advantage, or bonuses equal to or better than Advantage...every round, or nearly so. And the stealth tricks we're talking about don't work every time....you need the right conditions, and you have to make the roll. And it (the Advantage) can be countered by anything that gives disadvantage.
5) Assassins only need to be ahead in the initiative table to already have Advantage, which will happen more often than the above conditions. Arcane Tricksters use magic, so see point #2 above if you need fluff to explain it.. And Thieves....well they're supposed to be super-stealthy.
So that's where I come out. Thanks, everyone, for chiming in. Useful debate.
I was also unable to figure out all the specifics of hiding, even after reading Noctaem's guide... although I feel much more confident about certain pieces now.
If you aren't playing in the Adventure League (Where RAW rules) I would just point out the difference between being hidden from a target and the target not knowing where you are.
Here's how I describe it in my game: Imagine you are playing hide and go seek, you are it, and you cheat.... you peek between your fingers and see someone crawl under the couch. Now, when it comes time to search, you saw that person crawl under the couch... but you can't see them now. They are hidden, but you know where they are. In my game, that means you can't target the hidden person with a spell, but that person also won't gain advantage from attacking. Now, change the situation a little... the person that crawled under the couch kept crawling, came out the other side and moved around behind the easy chair next to the couch without you seeing or hearing their movement. Now they are both hidden and you don't know where they are. You can't target the hidden person with a spell, and that person also gains advantage from attacking.
Now, in your example, you pop up and shoot the the gnolls; you were hidden and they didn't know you were there; you have advantage.
You duck down and re-hide... You are hidden, but they know you are there since you popped out and saw you shoot them; you would not have advantage if you jumped out from the same position next round. To get advantage again, you would have to move somewhere while hidden, so they don't know where the next attack is coming from.
I don't know if that's RAW or fully baked, and since I'm not DMing Adventure League, it doesn't overly concern me. What concerns me is that it makes sense while allowing the players to take advantage of their class features.
Timborama wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
SterlingRat wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
sudsboy wrote:
And no, Advantage is not nearly as hard to get as you make out: Arcane Trickster, stick a Mage Hand next to them. Anyone pick up Find Familiar and have an Owl flyby Help. Or have a melee rogue shove them prone.
Yunru wrote:
You can't argue that the rogue is NOT specifically designed to hide. It has the only bonus action hide ability of any class in the game. It has sub-classes which are designed to favor hiding and attacking as well. So be careful about what you call BS on buddy.
Yunru wrote:
I'm not sure this is worth getting upset over, so I'll wish you all magnificent gaming and bow out with the final suggestion that, from here, the individual DM rulings are what matter. Cheers!
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Whatever. I'm not going to try to convince anybody dead set against it otherwise. And if the way you like to play is by tracking custom modifiers depending on circumstances, go for it.
Personally i like 5e's approach of just (for the most part) having advantage or disadvantage. If the rogue fails a re-stealth check, narrate it as "they're wise to your tricks. It won't work again."
Psikerlord wrote:
I like how Skulker gets the "lightly obscured" and similar rule sets, into play.
More possible definitions, the better.
sudsboy wrote:
I think it says something about the amount of play testing Wizards did with this edition that the two most hotly debated topics are minor issues with crossbows and hiding.
Not Bad
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
Didn't WOTC run some games that were recorded? Were there rogues in those games, to use as an example here?
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Theros wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Not sure what the confusion is to be honest....
Key points...paraphrasing from memory as I don't have books here....
General Rules:
1) In combat, most creatures stay alert for danger. (i.e. they see everything around them...just as players do).
2) You can't hide from creatures that see you.
Specific (overrides general) Rules:
1) Lightfoot halflings CAN hide behind another creature
2) Any rogue CAN hide with the Skulker feat IF lightly osbscured.
So, BEFORE combat starts, an enemy may NOT be alert for danger, so a DM could allow advantage on an attack as you emerge from cover, but generally speaking, once combat starts, you are no longer hidden once you come out from hiding behind cover to shoot, and therefore don't get advantage as you are instantly seen.
If a rogue with skulker feat can get LIGHTLY OBSCURED (ie shooting from DIM light, fog, foliage etc), he/she can hide and attack with advantage repeatedly as long as they make their hide checks. But in our game, hiding behind a door frame, rock etc does NOT permit hiding/advantage shooting. It does not seem to nerf my rogue too badly.
Likewise, a Lightfoot halfling CAN repeatedly hide behind creatures in combat and get advantage on ranged attacks.
For what it's worth, I see the following permutations:
Stealthing behind cover - This is fairly straightforward to me. You make the check and you're hidden (you'd probably be hidden even without a check if its full cover, although I'd make you make the check when you 'peek out', in that case). If you're hidden when you attack, you get advantage and sneak if applicable. This applies regardless of you hiding in the same spot, although I would consider applying disadvantage to the Stealth roll each time you re-stealth if you're doing it in the same place. This preserves the Rogue's mechanic but also rewards slightly more clever play than 'I pop up and down behind the barrel' (personally, I think anyone playing a Rogue would enjoy the idea of dashing from hiding place to hiding place, but that's just me).
Stealthing in the 'open' - Allowable where it fits the narrative (ie in front of an open door, down a hallway toward a not-particularly alert guard on a long shift, etc). Possible disadvantage if the attempt is especially outlandish or difficult, or advantage with a suitable distraction. Definitely a gray area in combat, although personally I would allow a Rogue to move out from a hiding spot and into melee to Sneak, assuming they could do it in a single move (I would allow a free active Perception from the target, though). The PHB sidebar does bring up this possibility, so I feel like this falls within 'RAW DM's choice', whatever that means
Stealthing in the open with light obscurement (foliage/smoke) w/ Skulker, Wild Elf, etc - Hide at will, even when observed. Light obscurement covers a situation (normally) where you're visible but indistinct, so for the feat to be meaningful, it has to allow this (and it makes this scenario very powerful/desirable for people with the feat - invest in smoke bombs like a proper ninja?)
Also, people have discussed some countermeasures, so my feelings on those:
Dodge - Requires you to see the attacker, so while it beats flanking-enabled sneak, it's useless against hide-enabled sneak. Unless you make your Perception, they're going to get advantage on one attack. Sorry bub!
Readying to shoot when they pop out - Doesn't negate advantage/sneak, because you don't see them until after the attack is launched. This does allow you to retaliate before they hide again but it doesn't just turn off hiding at whim, because that would be dumb.
Nexus6 wrote:
danyc wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Nexus6 wrote:
Nexus6 wrote:
The weirdest thing I find with this argument is why would the Rogue get disadvantage? Nothing in his ability to hide is diminished. Giving the creature he's trying to hide from advantage, so a +5 to passive perception, seems to be more in line with the concept of them being on the lookout.
Regardless, the rules of the game work as a framework to drive the narrative. Not vice versa. At least in my opinion. So if you don't think it makes sense for a stealthy archer to shoot from cover, then pop back in without being noticed by their target engaged in mortal combat with a 7 foot tall barbarian swatting at them with a giant axe, then that's your prerogative.
Another thing I find odd is that in most people's interpretation, combat seems so stiff and linear. Yes, you go in an initiative order, but that's because it's the only way to resolve it in game terms. Everything is happening at the exact same time. Combat is dynamic and intricate. Two 1st-level Fighters engaging each other in combat only swing at each other once every 6 seconds? No feignt, footwork, parry, or repost? Just sand there and slug away? If most of the game mechanics in combat are abstractions to support the narrative, why not hiding?
danyc wrote:
Nexus6 wrote:
Nexus6 wrote:
danyc wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Ok, for those saying you can't attack from stealth during combat....does that mean if you lose the initiative roll at the very start, when you are already stealthed, you are unable to sneak up behind an enemy and attack from stealth? You have to go first? Because I think that's an implication of what you are saying. That is, "enemies already in combat can't be fooled by stealth."
There is one other alternative: once enemies realize there is a stealther on your side, they can no longer be surprised by somebody coming out of stealth. That sounds more reasonable, but it creates a all kinds of complications for the DM. What happens if you have two rogues? Does one of them getting a surprise attack make it impossible for the other one to do the same? Does each monster individually have to become aware of the stealthers? Or if they can communicate do they share the knowledge ("Hey, there's a rogue behind the rock...look out") which means that the trick does work against zombies but not against gnolls? Etc. This is why I don't like the "once they figure it out" argument.
Personally I don't want to have to worry about all that, and I think it opens up way too much to interpretation and thus argument.
To me this is such a non-issue.
1) Rogues frequently have Advantage anyway (especially assassins)
2) It's only the first attack each round, not all of them. (Unless you miss the first one and have Skulker)
3) They still have to succeed at the stealth check each time
4) It requires specific circumstances, many of which the DM can easily counter (e.g. "they rush your position") without making up new rules
Finally, if the DM really thinks it should get harder to repeat this trick, I agree with the ealier poster: don't give the Rogue Disadvantage on stealth, give the opponents an active Perception roll with Advantage.
P.S. And I 100% agree with Danny's post above. Especially the last bit about "start doing it to them".
It kind of sounds the situation thoses who think combat stealth in combat is pariticularly difficult are describing is one where the enemy is actively looking. So the enemies take an action to actively look and can maybe spot the rogue. Or, they use their passive perception and maybe spot the rogue. In some of the cases it even sounds like you're having the enemy ready and action to spot the rogue... which seems even less likely. I think lots of people on both sides are cherry picking scenarios to attempt to explain it logically.
But from a power standpoint, it all seems pretty regular and not particularly overpowered in my opinion. Think about an EK fighter with truestrike. He can do that without having to make an opposed stealth check. Its not exactly the same but similar enough to mention.
Part of the problem, is there are at least 3 different stances on this.
1) Rogues can always hide during combat
2) Rogues can sometimes hide during combat depending on other variables
3) Roges can never hide during combat.
I am in camp #2. I don't agree that rogues (even halflings or WEs, or ones with SKulker) will always be able to hide; but I think it will sometimes be possible depending on what else is going on.
The hiding rules are a framework for the DM to add details so they can adjudicate each situation appropriately... I don't understand why so many people insist on creating absolutes.
Saelorn wrote:
So...does Sneak Attack also stop working after your opponent figures it out? I mean, logically it's the same thing, right? You get the extra damage because you're being "sneaky" while your target is distracted by your ally, so after you do it a couple of times the enemy stops paying attention to the Fighter and watches you like a hawk instead, making it impossible to be sneaky.
Tell me how this is different from the argument that you can't repeatedly get shots from stealth, assuming that you meet the criteria for stealthing in combat. Because the arguments I see don't cite RAW, they just say that it doesn't seem reasonable that an enemy is going to keep falling for the same trick over and over (and also that it just seems OP, but if that was a valid argument we could ban all the top builds on DPR Kings.)
danyc wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Ok, that's fine but then you are choosing fluff for Sneak Attack which makes it immune to "the enemy catching on" and choosing not to use fluff for Stealth that would have accomplished the same.
I.e., "Stealth is misnamed. It's not really being 'stealthy' it's always moving so that you're exactly in an enemy's ocular blind spot. Which is why you can use it even during combat."
Solved. (I'm sure somebody can come up with even better fluff.)
EDIT: But do you see the problem here? We suspend disbelief and ignore fluff for all kinds of abilities (this game has MAGIC SPELLS ffs) but then for this one thing...rogues re-stealthing in combat...some people are all "wait a sec...I don't believe that's realistic, and in some situations it makes some rogue builds maybe do as much damage as Fighters and Paladins if the DM doesn't take simple steps to counter it. World ending in 5...4...3...."
P.S. If Sneak Attack is not sneaky then why does having an ally within 5' make it possible to use?
Elfcrusher wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
danyc wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
danyc wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Or that ANYONE within the game can make use of hiding and attacking with advantage over and over? The rogue is simply capable of doing it more efficiently than the rest. Actually they are tied with goblins who can do the exact same thing since they have the rogue's bonus action hide mechanic. Let's all cheer for Coredump's nonsensical argument! Again....
All of which is better than "yeah you have disadvantage on the stealth roll."
Edit: Oh and the "no advantage on your attack roll" is silly and I disagree with it too.
I think one of the points of contention is an underlying disagreement about what dice rolls mean.
I agree with Core's point that there are different degrees of difficulty, and that being able to do something doesn't mean you can do it every time, and that taking a running jump up a slippery slope is different than doing it on level, dry ground.
However....I think that's all covered by the rules already. It's called rolling dice. But this is where the two different interpretations of the dice come in. One school of thought says, "Explain what you want to do and the DM will tell you what the modifiers are." The other school of thought says, "Roll the dice, and when you know if you succeed or fail, narrate it."
So in the slippery slope example I would just have the player roll the dice, and if he succeeds he can say, "Despite the ice on the slope, I carefully place my feet where the dry stones are and put Legolas to shame with my mighty leap." If he fails he can say, "My foot slips at the last second and I plunge in the abyss. But I wanted to play a dual crossbow rogue anyway."
Going back to the topic at hand, the rogue does not succeed every time. Sometimes he's gonna fail the stealth roll. When that happens the DM can say, "Ok, they're not falling for this trick again and they've adjusted their position so that they can see your hiding spot. You can try again next round, though."
See the difference?
And then of course there's always basic tactics. In the example Core gives above, with the 5 bad guys on 4 heroes...just have 2 of the bad guys rush the table. The rogue won't be able to hide, he'll be at disadvantage with his bow, and might not have allies adjacent for melee sneak attack. And if the other heroes get opportunity attacks as a result, well that's aweseome team tactics. You don't need to make up new rules to handle this situation, you just use tactics.
Finally, I love the suggestion that you turn the tables on them. A few NPC rogues sniping from cover might sour them on this strategy.
So...I get the argument that it's hard to fool them over and over again. I really do. But not only is that what rogues do for a living (fool people) but there are lots of unrealistic things that we don't bother modeling in D&D, letting the dice do it for us, and this particular one is not so unbalancing that it needs to be addressed as a special case.
Ok, I'm done arguing this one. It's getting kind of contentious in here.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
danyc wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
danyc wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
danyc wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
danyc wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
danyc wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Danyc, I felt you were arguing that rogues needed the advantage to stay competitive with fighters and that's why they should be allowed to hide and rehide at will.
It was that iteration of your argument I was against. If that wasn't your argument I'm sorry. If it was then this is the right thread. You can't just make a statement that you use to back up your claim and expect no one to dispute the original premise if they feel it's wrong.
Yeah, my point wasn't that Rogues suck' or 'Fighters are amazing' its was merely that Rogues are not so powerful that letting them get advantage all the time would break anything. With that 52 effective cap on their DPR even with even better than advantage, I think its obvious that it wouldn't overpower them. I think hiding in combat is fine, especially since letting rogues do it != they can do it 100% of rounds in combat. Terrain, weather, etc become factors, which is cool - it makes the party think!
So yeah, I dont think we have any major disagreement other than minor arguments about Fighter DPR!
danyc wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
You really show your ignorance and lack of control you know. You say people are getting tired of repeating why it's not, yet this is the first response I've had. You say you have to be in melee. Guess what? We're talking melee builds! And finally, you say this is to show a level 2 rogue is just like everyone else when the "discussion" has clearly been about whether advantage is easy to get each turn.
Now that your attempt to sideline my point's failed: what now?Yunru wrote:
I rhink you'll find the one that took until level 10 was the weakest possible.
Yes you're about the builds. Except the part where they require a high level, or multiclassing, or feats. Or the high investment. Sure as a Rogue you need either Shield Master or an Extra Attack, but then as previously mentioned the argument was about whether reliable advantage was easy to obtain.
You want a earlier build that does it easy? Sure. I'm going to use Multiclassing and a feat, so sorry. Wait, no I'm not.
Fighter 1/Rogue 1 Human Variant: 16 Str, 14 Dex. Medium Armor. Defensive Fighting Style. Shield and Rapier. Shield Master as the Human feat. Expertise in Athletics. That, right there is a level 2 character with 18 AC that can prone as a bonus action and has +7 to the check. And on success, that's advantage to the Rogue's attack.
I really wish this thread would get back to discussing how stealth actually works, citing RAW for evidence (either directly in reference to hiding, or to other rules that might serve as useful parallels.)
This back and forth about how powerful rogues are compared to fighters is starting to sound like somebody walked into the wrong room in a Monty Python skit.
Has anybody compiled every single RAW reference to hiding, obscurement, etc.?
Elfcrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Sure, I've done that some of the way, but if you want to contribute to the guide I have no objections If you do get around to doing it, if I could ask you to focus on anything related to light and cover in particular that would be of great help! thanks :0
Psikerlord wrote:
Yeah.. The response you quoted Danyc made very little sense to me as well. Basically, this person has a low amount of system mastery (since he thinks bad = good) and is basically saying that the math that people go out of their way to provide to explain the system is meaningless. Well it's great that you aren't interested in learning about this stuff, but if you're going to start spouting nonsense and saying that the proof which shows you're completely wrong isn't important, I don't think there's anything more to say.
Yunru wrote:
And no, dedication of resources =/= ease of advantage. The above build can get Advantage every round with a contested check. Which matches what was being argued against: nothing getting advantage at will like a sneaking rogue. Which is thus decidedly false.
Yunru wrote:
This discussion is getting stupid.
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Just so we are clear as to what I asked of you (because I thought I was quite direct)...
We start with you providing the following example:
Yunru wrote:
The Shadow Monk 6 was another example, for those who don't like multiclassing, feats or opposed checks.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
This argument is getting really stupid. I can't even tell what you all are arguing about anymore...I think you're each arguing something different.
And there's way too much rudeness going on.
And that's not counting the fact that anyone who disables a melee build to disable a melee build is a dick DM.
I don't understand; is this thread about houserule nerfing advantage on hide for rogues SA during combats after successful hide attempts versus opponents?
Rogues don't do a lot of damage unless they get SA. Even then, it just gets them on part with every other class (almost but not quite).
It's the staple of their class.
I don't see why it wouldn't be given to them.
It's like removing a fighter's martial aptitude because it gives them an edge.
Or removing a paladin's smite.
Or removing a monk's Flurry.
Or removing a cleric's Turn Undead.
Why would we gimp the rogue? Their life isn't easy at it is already.
Really, rangers is what everyone should look out for. They give off a weird vibe with the lone wolf thing.
And there's a cost for trying to do the Lightfoot+Skulker combo.
You don't get to be another race, probably better at everything else.
You don't get to take +2 to wtf stat, almost always better at everything else.
So would you trade Advantage, for ditching your race and a blanket -1 penalty to every le3t thing else you wanted to do?
Oh and some monsters have AoE attacks.
Silarey wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
danyc wrote:
danyc wrote:
Advantage and Sneak Attack are separate mechanics, they are independant of each other but they do interact with eahc other.
The argument is about gaining advantage when unseen which is both hidden and invisible, see PHB 195. Hiding is defined as unseen and unheard, see PHB 195.
Some people are arguing that they think it should be flexible which is called house-ruling not RAI.
RAI comes up when something is ambiguious or vague in the rules.
This is not a case of RAW vs RAI rather RAW vs Houseruling hence the frustration and personal attacks. This is proven by the fact none of the houseruling proponents actually want to discuss the rules rather they rely on anecdotes and "reality" to establish their position. This means that they prefer their games to have low system mastery so they can have more control over the people in their game. Ignore them and move on this thread is dead.
Yunru wrote:
I think in this situation, I would default to the creativeness of my players.
Suppose I have a ranged rogue that says "I hide in the shadows, attacking my enemies when they least expect it." Sounds like a sneak attack to me!
"I use the terrain to my advantage, shooting my crossbow when they look at the wizards fireball before again finding another opprotunity." That sounds like a great time to sneak attack.
"I shoot at the ogre." Great. Ranged attack, please and thank you.
I enjoy the narrative based play a great deal, and I believe that the rules for steath are ambiguitous for this reason. If my rogue "Hides on the second floor railing, moving among the back wall to find a good positition," then as long as they get a good stealth check, then sneak attack. If "I stand behind the rock and shoot," No sneak attack.
I think as a general rule to ambiguity, we can use the other two pillars of 5e, RPing and Exploration, to guide our judgement in grey areas.
I prefer grey.
Coredump00 wrote:
Or possibly brown.
Saelorn wrote:
danyc wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ugh! I dropped Pathfinder to get away from this kind of thing. But all games evolve as people run into situations, and players (and GMs) want to develop a consistent ruling to avoid confusion and empower both parties.
It does seem to depend on too many factors - and partly play-styles - to come up with THE answer. How smart are the enemies? How perceptive? It seems reasonable that, if Hide is an opposed check (Hide roll vs WIS Perception roll), and the Rogue beats the opposed roll, they succeed - they have managed to find a way to evade detection, and thus can attack with both Advantage and Sneak damage.
As someone pointed out, though, a smart enemy could ready their action, attacking when/if the Rogue pops out to attack. (Still would need to beat his Hide roll, though.)
danyc wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yes it does seem to restrict it to basically only Wood Elves and Lightfoot Halflings, or being invisible.
The only other thing I can think of is we're only given the rules for hiding, not for staying hidden.
Yunru wrote:
Noon wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Cow Ninja ... wins all arguments.
Raegoul wrote:
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
I wish the Player's Handbook hadn't stated that people are looking all around them all the time in combat. That's what makes this issue a mess. Also, it's unrealistic. If you are looking all around you during combat, and are not concentrating on the threat directly in front of you, you are going to die. Sorry, but if you are engaged in melee, and a sneaky, silent person stealths up behind you, they are going to be hidden from you and their attack is definitely going to be a "sneak attack." If you are aiming your bow or spell, concentrating on picking off targets on the battlefield, you are not going to be paying attention to the shadowy rogue skirting around behind you to stick a dagger in your back.
In my games, both these situations would result in a sneak attack with advantage, assuming the attacker's stealth check beat their victim's passive perception. It's up to the DM, as is clearly stated in the rules, but I feel that liberal use of sneak attack is necessary for the a rogue to stay viable in combat, and such use is intended.
This isn't a house rule, by the way, it's my interpretaion of a pretty vague "rule" in the PHB. I feel to be stricter than that is to be unfair to players playing rogue characters. Not saying hiding in combat is meant to be easy, but it IS meant to be possible, and useful.
BTShire wrote:
One thing that is needed to balance this discussion is that the circumstances described won't always be true. There will be times when there is no place to hide, and there isn't an ally neary your target. DPR discussion can't just be around optimal cases. Sometimes the rogue is gonna suck, so I'm ok with them shining (but in a way that doesn't give off any light...) when the stars are aligned.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Yunru wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
danyc wrote:
danyc wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Saelorn wrote: