Hi guys,
One of my players is a lev 3 assassin.
During the chase scene I was DM ing today, he wanted to run behind a crate, use cunning action to hide in shadows , then attack from behind the crate to get advantage and sneak attack.
How should I play this? Can a rogue just run and hide behind a barrel and become an unseen attacker?
Someone who understands my confusion please sort out this rogue combat mechanic for me?
You are going to get a wide variety of answers, because the rules allow for a lot of flexibility depending on the situation.
Based on what you describe, it sounds like the 'target' was able to see where the rogue went, and saw him duck behind a barrel.
If that is the case, I would allow him to hide; but the target would be watching that location, and as soon as the rogue moved enough to attack, he would no longer be 'hidden' and would not get advantage.
Now, if the rogue ducked into a different room before hiding, or there was enough barrels and crates that he could move around a bit and pop up somewhere else.... I may allow it, or I may allow the hide check with disadvantage, or a perception check, with or without advantage.
But it depends on the exact particulars of the situation.
If there is only one barrel or crate, and the enemy saw the assassin hide behind it, i'll would allow the enemy a perception check with advantage VS the assassins stealth check.
I'ts all to clear and during a combat everybody is checking and trying to track it's enemies. This only applies to ranged weapons. If the assassin comes from hiding into open range he's in bad luck, you really can't hide in plain sight.
The thing with the assassin why he gets the sneak attack and all is that he attacks the target in a weak spot. If the target knows the assassin is there, he/she defends it's weak spot a little better.
Ipecac wrote:
So the rogue is hiding behind a crate. He can't see the target because there's a crate between him and his target.
The rules say:
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you
and
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.
with the caveat
under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden
It does not specifically call out ranged attacks. But coming out of hiding is coming out of hiding, whether it's to approach or get a clear shot at your target doesn't matter.
It does not clarify "under certain circumstances". Therefore it's up to you as a DM. Is the target sufficiently distracted? Did the target see the rogue hide behind the crate?
This topic is very open for debate, but I've made some decisions on how it works when I DM and as long as I'm consistent when I run, that's about all I can do. I've written up some guidelines for my groups...
Before combat starts:
- For most characters it takes an action to hide (people tend to forget).
- The general assumption is that if the enemy is aware of a threat they are actively looking and (unless distracted) it's very difficult to get advantage using stealth.
- I try to give PCs a chance to get stealth but it's not always going to always happen. If the guards are alert and watching it's going to be very difficult.
- Most guards are not always alert and watching
Once combat starts:
- The enemy may be distracted by someone they are fighting (within limits)
- I generally use a "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" logic. Pop out from behind cover and do a range attack once, ok. Do it a second time from the same spot and they're expecting you.
- The enemy may be distracted by the half-orc barbarian trying to eat their face but if a rogue pops out from directly behind the barbarian, the rogue probably isn't going to get advantage.
- If the rogue pops out from behind a tree directly behind the barbarian, they're probably going to be seen as well.
- The rogue pops out from behind a tree in a flanking position? Sure, the first time they get advantage but not the second time. In addition, the rogue has to have a way of moving from one piece of cover to the next without being seen.
- There are exceptions to the rule of course - halflings hiding behind their ally (probably taking a penalty to hit unless they've taken a feat) or wood elves hiding in the weeds or creatures hiding in the darkness beyond you line of site.
The rules are vague enough with loopholes big enough to drive an apparatus of kwalish through, so different DMs are going to rule differently.
Why would you need to hide from a creature that can't see you? or better yet, Would you be hidden if the enemy knew you were behind the crate or barrel to begin with. What is the point of hiding when no one can see you and they know where you are at? If you make the hide check then they don't know where you are hidden? They didn't see you sneak behind the barrel. That's the point of stealth.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Ipecac wrote:
Well, my instinct was to say that going unseen in combat for the purpose of making an attack would require running into the underbrush, hiding, then moving to some other location and making an unseen attack from there, and thus exposing yourself. The other thing is that when a friend is engaged in combat against a monster, the assassin gets the sneak attack damage regardless, just because the monster is distracted and exposing weaknesses.
A big question is regarding the assassin's automatic advantage on attack rolls agains anyone who hasn't acted yet in this combat. That refers to the combat scene, not the combat round, correct?
If it was the round, then the assassin would have advantage every time he attacks, provided he chooses someone lower in the order. Based on the text of the book "getting the drop" seems to imply that these people have not enterered "combat mode" and so are at a disadvantage, versus just those people who are unaware because they did not see the attackers and are surprised.
does this make sense?
Being invisible makes it even more complicated....
Invisible creatures are unseen but not hidden, unless they spend an action to hide. Dumb but currently RAW.
But assasins fight with a party very simply....they scout ahead sneakily, If they manage to remain undetected at the start of the combat they get a free shot in the surprise round, which they get advantage on and automatically crit. Then he can use his cunning action to either retreat behind the party and assume standard combat formations, or he can stand there like a dummy and get eaten if he looses initiative.
After the first round, rogues are easy....They attack whoever is within 5' of an ally. This also enables sneak attack dice, but NOT advantage or autocrits.
Look at the logic of the situation, not to the rules (they are guidelines in this case). Is the target aware they are about to be attacked? Then the Assassinate ability doesn't help. Does the target know where you are (doesn't matter if they have line of sight)? Then you dont get Advantage to attack. Now if the target is not aware of a pending combat then Assassinate applies. If the target doesn't know where an attack is coming from you gain Advantage. The DM will know if a target is unaware and should apply the rules fairly, the PC doesn't decide if the target is aware or not but can make steps to improve their chances to gain Advantage.
My approach:
- If you need to move out of hiding to get into position to attack, then you will not get normally get advantage. Moving out of hiding means spending some movement speed (standing up counts). You could still get advantage if your opponent doesn't know there is a creature hiding somewhere and isn't otherwise paying particular attention to the area where you are hiding. Or if you managed to convince the target you're hiding in one place but you're really somewhere else (like you stepped behind one pillar and teleported behind another.)
- If you can attack without moving (for instance, by leaning out from behind a corner), then I'll give you advantage only if the target can't be certain of your location. If you're behind wall with two arrow slits, and you succeed on a stealth check, then the target doesn't know which slit you'll attack from and you can get advantage.
Ipecac wrote:
Some good responses in this thread - it indeed is a very poorly/vaguely designed mechanic.
-------
EDITED after Mearls clarification regarding 'when surprise ends'
The 'Assasinate' reading is now clear, no ambiguity:
A) As soon as a hostile action is annoucned, the DM determines who on either side of an encounter is 'surprised', then makes everyone roll initiative
B) During the 1st round, Assasin gets advantage and sneak attack from 'assasinate' on anyone who hasnt had his turn yet i.e. anyone below him in the INITIATIVE order OR Surprised.
However, for the auto-crit dmg from 'assasinate', the Assasin's target in this round should have been one of the creatures judged to be 'surprised' when INIT was rolled ** (NOTE: this is a double check, Target needs to be surprised AND be lower INIT than you in the first round i.e. Assasins MUST take ALERT feat)**
C) As clarified by Mearls, as soon as the surprised creature 'misses' his turn in the first round, he is no longer surprised.. So all other rounds of combat: Assasin gets sneak attack dmg vs any enemy engaged in melee with his friends, to get advantage Assasin needs to be attacking from a 'hidden' position. (and auto-crit feature v/s surprised enemies doesnt apply beyond the first round of combat.)
** The case of any Creature who was judged to be Surprised but rolled a higher INIT than the assasin - the Creature simply wont do anything on their turn in the 1st round. Having not moved yet, the Assasin still gets advantage and sneak attack on them in the first round from 'Assasinate'. However, if the target was above in the INIT order, since as soon as they miss their turn, theyre no longer surprised, the target CANNOT be CRIT by the Assasin feature
-------
Now HIDING:
In past editions this was the Cover & Concealment mechanic, while in 5E it's been labelled 'Obscurity':
The 2 key points about hiding in combat as per PHB:
1. Can they see you?
2. How well can they see you?
All this is basically to determine if Rogue has advantage on his attacks, when attacking from a hidden position. In cases of melee, it's easier to rule, imagine a ranged rogue for the below.
Four ways to be 'unseen' and hence attempt a hide (which mechanically is a Stealth skill vs Perception skill roll):
a) Magically Invisible: you still need to attempt to hide, because you can still be heard/perceived (think of it as a 'move silently' check, which used to be different skill in earlier edition, now rolled in 'Stealth'), I'd give advantage on stealth roll.
b) Under magical Darkness: same as above. Note, unless rogue has a way to see through this magical darkness, he too is effectively 'blind'
c) In total cover: same as above
D) Obscurity - both heavy and light, allow you to attempt to hide: no advantage on stealth roll in light obscurity
[Always remember the core rule, you cannot attempt to hide from someone who can see you I.e. You cannot hide in plain sight. This will be most often the conflict with Case D above, especially 'Light obscurity']
In addition as someone said above, use the logical 'fool me once, fool me twice' logic I.e. For cases C and D above, if attempting to re-hide after an attack using cunning action, I'd rule 'disadvantage'.
Problem childs, as identified above, are Halflings trying to hide behind party members, Wild Elves trying to hide in light obscurity (eg natural darkness area vs creatures with darkvision)
If you are unseen, you don't need to hide to get advantage. Hiding is normally a defensive move, it keeps attackers from easily targeting you because they don't know where you are.
The grey area is situations where you try to come out of hiding and make an attack. The only hard rule is that if you approach your target, you reveal yourself. But what exactly approaching the target means is ambiguous, as is what happens when you become visible but don't technically approach the target. I think that's fair, it's often so situation that it makes some sense as a DM call. I think a little more guidance in the DMG would have been nice though.
I'm not sure if we agree on this point or not....
RealSeolfor wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
I think we are in agreement, but let me try one more scenario
3) I am sneaking around your Den; last minute I hear you opening the door so I step into the corner. You walk into the room, but don't notice me yet so I try and Hide. I am lightly obscured by the shadows, but if you looked around you would likely see me. I roll stealth and get a 22.
You sit at your desk and start working, you still don't notice me in the corner, eventhough there is technically line of sight between your eyes and at least part of my body. I am using the shadows and any intervening objects to stay Hidden.
Since anyone who is surprised is unable to act in the first round, one might use "surprise round" as a coloquialism, right? If I said surprise round, this is what I would have meant: "The first round of combat in which surprised characters get to action, movement or reaction actions."
I feel like I need to offer stealth opportunities for my assassin in many areas. Shadows being cast by moonlight to obscure him will allow attacks from the darkness, light underbrush the same. Beyond that, using stealth checks to circle out of line of sight, using terrain features like crates to get attacks from behind or to take advantage of distraction.
It's also nice that his comanions are an elvin ranger and a monk with very high dex. He doesn't always have to be the one firing the first shot to get his advantages.
Thanks for clearing this matter up for me. It seems like a lot of it is DM disc. on how figure it. Mostly I plan to allow my players to do whatever they want, but I'd like to know what to employ to bring that activity into the game using stats, or when to leave stats out of it.
Ipecac wrote:
Ipecac wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
There's a difference between in combat or not. In combat, the default rule is that you can't hide unless you are out of sight.
So you could definitely hide in a crowded square, that is up to the DM to judge. If you are fighting in a crowded square, that is generally different.
Actually those are preconditions in the rules, just not listed in that way. And while shadows are only light obscurement I would rule if the target were distracted he may not notice someone standing silently in a shadow. That's what DMs have to account for! If the DM is playing the target as paranoid then he would see the assassin. The player has now way of knowing the mind of the target...
As to Wood Elf, I would not give them the light obscurement rule inside a room because that's not a natural environment!
Could it be that we have the halflings and woodelfs hide abilities all wrong?
Maybe they are meant as out of combat abilities and no for in combat? Not saying it's RAW but it would solve alot of problems 
The rules do not change simply because you're in or out of combat. There's no 1 set of rules for in combat and then a different set for out of combat, no matter what some of the people posting here are claiming.
And no, the hafling and elven abilities are not wrong, they work as they've always worked. Both in and out of combat.
The book says
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
And I wasn't talking to him specifically with my original comment either. You either.
And my point stands, there aren't changes to the rules between in-combat and out of combat. The rules remain the same throughout unless the DM houserules changes.
Noctaem wrote:
Perhaps what Noctaem is getting at is that there's no difference between combat and any other situation with an alert observer. I think what some of us are saying is that the rules tell us to assume creatures in combat are alert. That prevents a lot of tricks you might try when facing an unalert observer, out of combat.
It's not the combat that's the deciding factor, it's alertness. But normally alertness comes with combat.
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
This is pretty easy to determine, examining the rules on PHB pages 178 and 195.
1) Can the assassin hide?
- the base case is that they can only make Dex(Stealth) checks agaist creatures that can't see them. If such cover is available, the assassin can attempt a Dex(Stealth) check.
2) Can the assassin stay hidden?
- usually an assassin leaving hiding in combat will be detected.
- this is modified by being lightly or heavily obscured.
- depends on the comparison of the target's Wisdom(Perception), either active or passive, check vs the assassin's Dexterity(Stealth) check
3) Does the assassin have advantage attacking from being hidden?
- If you are hidden (ie unseen & unheard) from a target you gain advantage on an attack roll, though hiding is then negated upon the ensuing hit or miss.
They way I apply this as a DM...
1) Allow characters to hide if they can get out of an opponent's LOS or have the equivalent ability (so Wood Elf's Mask of the Wild ability).
2) The target DOES NOT automatically see characters who have legitmately rolled a Dex(Stealth) check UNLESS their active/passive Wisdom(Perception) check, as modified by light/heavy obscurity, is sufficient to defeat the hiding charactrer's Dex(Stealth) check or the hiding character breaks cover.
3) Cover DOES NOT need to be complete once the Dex(Stealth) check is made from outside LOS. Half or 3/4 cover will suffice. If not, what's the point of Stealth in the first place?
4) If they can maintain their stealth status they gain advantage on attacks made up to that point in their turn.
Primarchx wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Personal attacks are also a violation.
Further posting/discussion in this manner will result in administrative action against your account.
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.
Ipecac wrote:
Ipecac wrote:
Ipecac wrote:
I love how you completely ignore the fact that his scenario actually specifically calls out that the boss is distracted and make a wall of text WITH MORE SCENARIOS. You're up to 15 now from the earlier 12 btw.
I appreciate the scenarios, they make it easy to see how rule interpretations can be applied.
I am still posting in this thread so I can refine my understanding of the usage of the rules, so I appreciate having it spelled out.
I feel that DMs who rule that coming out from behind cover the fire a weapon gives LOS to the monsters are missing the point and unduly punishing classes with stealth-based damage.
Hiding/Stealth checks are an action-tax for the rogue class to deal its damage, simple as that.
If DMs need to curtail PC use of cover + Cunning Action to gain advantage, they need to whittle down the cover that they make available to PCs in the encounter.
If DMs need to curtail PC use of stealth + assassinate, they need to whittle down the number of assassins in the party.
ModusPonens wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Ipecac wrote:
Ipecac wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Enemies are not distracted just because an ally is standing next to them.
Actually they kinda are which is why rogues can deal sneak attack against engaged enemies. But there is no -distracted- condition.
the rules already allow for a solution though. The fighter can -distract- the boss by using the Help action to assist the rogue.
Hiding basically always granting advantage and sneak attack 'for free' is pretty unbalanced. It is considerably easier to hide from most enemies than it is to hit their AC. If you want to pull this off, then you need a wizard to cast invisibility on you. Then you will be unseen, but not hidden.
Byakugan01 wrote:
The 5E rogue is balanced around getting his sneak attack every turn. Players/GMs coming in from 3rd ed might find that odd, but no reason to disallow it. Compute basic avg dmg math and you will see that a Rogue needs to apply sneak dmg every Attack to keep step with other martial classes.
Then its a question of 'easily hiding/attacking/rehiding' every single round - depends on many factors and the DMs interpretations. We have multiple threads and many opinions on these boards regarding this, I'll let you search and read rather than repost. Remember, it's all to get 'advantage' on your Attack, which takes your chance to hit from an avg ~50% to ~75%, thereby increasing your applied avg damage. I'll tell you now, allowing your Rogue to do this every round will be making his life too easy a a tad OP, while not allowing him to do it enough, will gimp him. You've got to rule with logic and fairness and let him do it, where applicable and where his Stealth rolls are good.
Finally it's the case of the Assasin and his level 3 assassinate ability - the auto crit feature is very powerful, and far too many stars need to align for a Rogue to get it. I'd be very careful, so as to not let him get it atmthe start of every encounter. Again, long posts about its mechanics and logic have been posted.
Gluck
That's really well put RealSealfor, thanks.
The assassin in my party is playing alongside an elemental monk, who can attack 3 times doing something like 1d6+4, 1d4+4, 1d4+4, if he uses his monk weapon and flurry of blows, or get 1d6+4, 1d4+4 every turn.
The ranger aces shots with his longbow at +5 to hit, and can deal 1d8 damage to two adjacent attackers with his hunter perk.
When you put it in those terms, it seems like you perfectly illustrated it.
RealSeolfor wrote:
RealSeolfor wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
That's awesome. That is what I needed to understand. More than just rule crunching, how do I DM for an assassin. Thanks very much.
Btw, what is a BBEG? Big bad evil guy?
yes. Usually a boss of some kind.
I see a lot of questions about "can he hide behind the same cover to hide?"
At what point do you let the d20 decide? We are not our characters and we are not able to determine exact locations at each given moment (even mapped combat is an approximation), so if anything is in doubt roll a d20! The DM should apply Ad/Disad to the DEX or WIS check as they see fit but shouldn't take away from the PC chosen ability because they feel a certain way about logic. Let the dice decide if the target was distracted (WIS check). Let the dice decide if the Rogue can hide again in the same spot (DEX check, maybe at Disad). By taking this approach you validate the players options without being that "jerk" DM that never gives the Rogue his due.
strider13x wrote:
Thank you, Coredump, for accentuating my point. Is the target distracted? I dont know, roll d20. Can I hide behind the barrel? Can you? Roll d20 and we'll find out together!
strider13x wrote:
Yeah, for some reason people think the rogue getting advantage continually is way over the top. Meanwhile the barbarian next to him is doing reckless attack over and over. "Oh but enemies get advantage against him!". Yeah, and when the rogue attacks from hiding he's left exposed with about half as much HP as the barbarian. Plus even a competent rogue will fail their sneak attempt every so often - the barbarian never fails at reckless attack.
That's an issue with balance - if you both balance a power and let the GM decide if it can be used, the balancing will ensure that the GM's stingyness makes the power pretty damn weak in the end.
I am now at the point these days that I will let a Rogue make a stealth check and walk between two orc guards standing beside an entrance. I will let the Rogue roll a stealth check and walk right between them. Why? Seen too many movies where the rogue did just that. I will let a person walk through a cafeteria and not be noticed. Same reason. I will let a person dart around in the middle of battle because the Rogue is smart enough to know when to move when people are looking the other way. Combat is distracting when someone is swinging a sword at you. It is very easy for someone to knife you in the back while you are fighting Grog the Orc Barbarian. I guess I wouldn't allow somone to hide on flat ground on a plain with no plant life (apparently the Wood Elf is the exception). I've just become more lenient with Stealth over the years.
Coredump00 wrote:
It's not even rulings though. As GM you just decide if they get surprise or can attack from stealth.
Sure, you might base it on fluff description and the players might look to get in that same sort of described area to get stealth - and as a GM you might even be consistant and give them surprise or attack from stealth when the PC is in that sort of fluff description again.
But that's not really anything to do with rulings. It's to do with fluff. To do with how the game world is described and where the PC is described in it.
Coredump00 wrote:
The dm can call for a check anytime he feels an outcome is uncertain. A monster doesn't need to actively "search" to make a perception roll if the dm determines the outcome of ehat the creature sees is uncertain.
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
The entire passive perception mechanic is just bunk. Game runs better just rolling every time ime. Ie treat stealth/perception as a contest (in fact the DMG uses stealth/perception as an example of a contest).
Ilse wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ok so peeking out to attack is neither being discovered or stopping to hide... Once you attack, hit or miss, you are no longer hidden which could fall under being discovered I suppose. If you leave your hiding spot and approach you can be said to be discovered since that's what the rule actually says.
And no, coming out of hiding alone isn't enough to lose hidden. It specifically says COME OUT OF HIDING AND APPROACH. 2 requirements. You don't get to ignore one of them for no reason for the sake of your argument.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
It says that leaving hiding and approaching a creature make you lose hidden. No one disputes that. It also says you can't hide from a creature that can see you. If you peak out from behind a corner, the creature can see you. (Unless you're invisible or in the dark or something, of course.)
Its reasonable to ask whether a creature immediately sees you after a even a quick peak, and rather you can still have advantage on an attack if you do so as part of a quick peak. I do think the answers depend on the situation and leaving it up to the DM is not a terrible solution, IMO.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
So what you're saying is that unless the DM houserules, no character can ever attack from stealth using physical objects as cover unless they are a Hafling or an Elf who are using their racial features to hide. Because as soon as you peek around the cover to attack, you lose hidden because you're automatically seen even though you beat passive perception to become hidden in the first place? Is that right?
The only way to get around this is for the DM to adjudicate that the creature is distracted or instead of automatically losing hidden as per the rules, that the creature gets to make a free check or whatever. That right?
Can I ask that someone post this question on twitter so that we can get input from Jeremy Crawford?
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
[quote="Ilse"]
You are wrong here, there are many sections that all point in the same direction:
Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
This is a circular argument. You claim the PHB NEVER says you need to use the Active Search action to make a perception check. Ilse then quotes you 4 different places in the PHB where it says you do. And finally your rebuttal is "the DM can have creatures make perception checks for free". Well yes thank you, as it's already been said multiple times, using that argument is kind of stupid because no one is arguing that it's not true. What we are saying is that the default rules for this stuff are written in the PHB. Stop dragging DM fiat into the discussion like some shield to protect you!
Noctaem wrote:
Nocatem, I would even go so far to say that the PHB even says that a creature doesn't get a perception check to find the hidden rogue in combat without using a search action. See our agreement?
Now, where we apparently disagree is on whether the DM can use perception checks for other things in combat without an action being required. My take is that as long as the act in question isn't an "active search" then the rules permit a perception check being called for in combat without any action requirement. Do you agree with this?
So in the scenario where the rogue comes out of his hiding spot and approaches a creature and IF DM has determined that it's uncertain that the creature he is approaching is distracted then the DM can and should roll a perception check to determine if that monster actually is distracted. Using a perception check to determine if the creature is distracted is not the same thing as having the monster actively search for the rogue.
So what you're arguing is that the DM's can grant free skill checks whenever they want? Well yes, that's a thing.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Nocatem I think that maybe the only other major point of disagreement between us on this issue is whether the situation where a rogue pops his head around a crate in combat should be treated similiar to a situation where a rogue move out from the crate and approaches a creature.
Many here beleive sticking your head around the crate can be ruled to work identically to the case where you leave cover and approach a creature and that such a ruling is not against any written rules. Any comments on that?
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
"Actively" just means your PC is purposely and knowingly doing something.
If your PC decides to enter the next room and shoot the first Kobold he sees, he enters and *actively searches* for a kobold.
Maybe the kobold is standing in the middle of the room, so the active search is immediately successful.
Perhaps the kobold is quietly eating in the corner, so the PC may need to make a perception check to see if he notices him.
Perhaps the kobold is under a blanket, so the PC will need to use the Search Action to lift blankets, and look under tables until he finds him.
Passiive just represents things you don't realize you are doing 'all the time, in the background'
If a mage is walking down the street with a lot of graffiti, the DM may use Passive Int(Arcana) to see if the mage remembers that some of writing is actually necromancery (?) in nature
This could even happen if the mage was in combat in that street, he passivley remembers the importance.
Or... the mage PC could try to *actively* remember information by telling the DM "I cast Magic MIssile at the Dark Ness Monster; is there anything magical I can decipher about the writing on the walls?"
This does *NOT* require taking an action, he is just trying to search his knowledge. OTOH, he could take an action "I want to get closer to the writing and take a good look to see if I know anything about it" *That* would be an action.... perhaps it gives him advantage, or a bonus, or nothing...
The point is, using a skill check does *not* require the use of an action.
Oh yes, let's get into the grammar of it when you simply having nothing else left to show as far as the rules are concerned....
Also, Passive INT (Arcana) does not exist, you just dove straight into houserule territory to justify your argument about rules that are very clearly listed in the PHB. Good job I guess? Essentially, you're now arguing that you're right based on your personal houserules and how you would run things at your table. You cannot expect the rest of the dnd commmunity to simply agree with your houserules because you're right and we're wrong... I mean your position is getting more and more ridiculous by the post...
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@coredump, you are, again, mistaken about this edition of the rules. It is very simple, there is a section what tells you what you can do "for free" in combat, and you can interact with ONE object, or you can communicate. That's all. And even the communication is quite limited: "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."
Now, is that enough for an intimidate attempt ? Well, the answer is also there: "The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle."
So it's all up to the DM (as usual in this edition, by the way) intimidating the kobold facing you, probably no problem, I would not require an action, it can be done through a brief growl and a glare. Intimidating the small army in front of you, I would probably require you to take an action, to deliver a proper speech and to flex your muscles or demonstrate your magical power or something.
HOWEVER, as there IS an action that is created SPECIFICALLY for a character to have a perception ROLL, it's OBVIOUS that you need to TAKE THAT ACTION to roll a perception check. Otherwise, there would be no need for that action to exist. So, for me, the designers' intent is crystal clear, he wrote it down in black and white when he created that action, and it correlates with all the other extracts from the rules that I have shown you time and time again. No ambiguity here whatsoever.
Noctaem wrote:
Good points.
OoftaMeg wrote:
How do you ever sneak up behind someone. Do people now have 360 degree vision or are we roleplaying Beholders with our 10 eyestalks.
arnwolf666 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ilse wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@OoftaMeg
We both know you invented a new scenario which you then pushed into the discussion, and followed that up with making a strawman of what I had actually said about a completely different scenario. Anyone can read the thread and see this as fact. I've never said that leaving your hiding spot is the only way to lose hidden. In fact I've given several examples of what makes you lose hidden in this edition in this very thread and I'm the who wrote the mini guide for stealth and hiding.... Furthermore the post you claim I say this in, post 93, lists two ways to lose hidden that I'm using as examples:
Noctaem wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem, what exactly is your position here? I have to say that I can't clearly tell...
As I'm reading, there are two main issues being discussed. They might be framed as:
1. If a hidden character peaks out from behind his hiding place, what if anything do the rules say about him being seen?
2. Are there any situations where the rules would allow a character to make an active perception check to notice something without requiring an action?
Are those the questions you are addressing? If so, could you summarize your answers?
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@ jaelis
First, I agree that if you are trying to detect a hidden creature, then you must use the Search Action. The rules say as much in multiple places and that is what a creature who has successfully hidden itself earns/achieves via it's actions.
Second, the sentence you would agree with is weird to me since the rules don't specify one set of rules for detecting creatures outside vs inside combat. Both refer to the exact same rules text which states that you need to make Active Search checks in the case of your first point above. The fact that out of combat you don't use turns, initiative, rounds, etc.. makes no difference on this point. Further evidenced by how traps work.
Traps have a set DC which must be beaten in order to detect them. Traps also sometimes take effect outside of combat. If the party is Actively Searching for traps, they can make Active Search checks or in some cases, the DC to detect the trap is lowered but is still compared to passive perception. If they are not Actively Searching, the DC is compared to Passive Perception regardless. Which is the exact same thing as finding a hidden creature, if you want to find something which has beaten your passive perception, you must make an Active Search check, in order to do that you must use an Action. The rules function in essentially the same way on this point with minor quirks unique to each trap.
For those who might say "If you have a chance (during combat) to notice an unobvious thing, then the DM can have you make a wisdom (perception) check to do so without using an action" this is essentially saying "the DM is the arbiter of the game". Well no ****, the DM can give free checks to whoever they want. But that doesn't mean that the ruling of the DM to do so follows the rules of the game. In this case, it does not, since by the rules an action is required in combat or outside combat it can vary but works using the same basic rules. This is also why I have no interest in discussing individual rulings with some of the posters here because there's literally no point.
And finally, the rules say that when a creature is not actively searching for/determining something the DC for detecting that thing should be compared to passive perception or passive insight. That's the sole purpose of these two mechanics and their entire reason to exist. And I haven't actually personally decided if that's a good or bad thing for the record.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The reasons I distinguish between in combat and out of combat are:
1) The section describing actions is entitled "Actions in combat"
2) Under the description of time in the game, it says "In combat and other fast-paced situations, the game relies on rounds, a 6-second span of time described in chapter 9 (Combat)"
3) Under initiative it says "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check ..."
4) Under the Ability Checks and Skills section, there is no mention I can see of using actions for any skill.
I feel those are compelling, but you might not. But I don't think you can claim the rules say that you take actions outside of combat.
I've also never said that reactive checks are always passive. What I have said is that in the discussion we're having, about finding hidden creatures (and now traps) you use passive perception or if you're actively searching for these things, you use an Active Check.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Nocatem, what is the rules method for determining if a creature is too distracted to notice a rogue approaching them in the open?
FrogReaver wrote:
All these debates seem circular and really boil down to there is ambiguity and room for interpretation in the rules. Generally in my group when we work out stealth in combat this is how it runs: First the rogue asks if there is cover. If there is he then asks if it's possible to sneak out of line of sight and into that cover. If the DM says it's possible then the rogue moves to cover and rolls a stealh check. If he succeeds then he's hidden and has advantage for his next attack. This attack is usually a ranged attack. Whether or not the enemy will see him when he attacks is never brought up, because this is more an issue of game mechanics at that point. The payoff for moving and making a stealth check is getting advantage on his attack. After the attack is made (the rogue does not have skulker) his position is considered to be revealed. In order to attack with advantage again he needs to move and stealth into new cover. Again this is more for game mechanics. Firing away from one hiding spot is overpowering. Requiring the rogue to move makes for more interesting combat.
For melee attacks from hiding spots with advantage, for the sake of simplicity I would say that if the rogue is hidden, within movement range of his target and can approach from outside of his target's line of sight he can get the attack with advantage. One other thing, with the halfling ability to hide behind people, the rogue usually only gets away with that in the first round. (he hides behind our warlock's robes) After that the whole party is usually in line of sight of their enemies so moving behind another ally isn't practical.
You're mixing two systems of logic here, inferential and strict.
OoftaMeg wrote:
I think you missed strict logic 101....
Moribund wrote:
Now now, apparently determining in any way whether a creature is distracted is always dm fiat no matter what. Even if the dm just decides the creature is distracted he is house ruling! Tic
strider13x wrote:
raithan wrote:
Moribund wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Moribund wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations 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.
Noctaem wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jeez man - this is what happens when the text treats something as emperical (like using string to determine line of sight on a battlemat) when really it's a subjective choice.
Suddenly all the people who confuse their subjective choice as being an emperical measure all get even more convinced of their mistaken perspective. And other people take the fall out of it.
Then again I've played palladium for many years, so I'm used to the situation. It's just annoying to see remnants in what is otherwise slowly becoming a profesional game system.