Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

 

You're describing readied actions. They could coordinate that in advance possibly. The trick there is they'd need to see either the attacker or the target. If they can easily see the target then it's possible the target can easily see them. If they can easily see the attacker then the attacker isn't hidden.

 

Apparently you’ve never seen a trained sniper in action even if it’s just in a movie. I guarantee the sniper can clearly see the target without the target remotely being able to see them. 

And if the group of kobolds have 1 initiative roll and go on the same turn then it is completely logical that the “signal” is when the “leader” attacks they all attack. They know they are ambushing someone so once they hear the twang of a bowstring or other noise initiating the attack they all go. 

 

Snipers get shot sometimes. Sorry to ruin that fantasy for you. They're not invisible, just hard to see.

Anyway, real life tangent aside, this series of responses is like a game of telephone. It isn't even any longer about what it was about. But if you want me to amend the original, now irrelevant, hypothetical we were using that this series of responses was from, I will I guess? So ok, here goes:

The kobolds hide, and when the adventurers get into the ideal ambush spot the leader (from his heavily obscured area) yells "attack!" And the kobolds spring into action, ambushing the party.

There. I'm now accounting for the sniper-factor. It'd still be at advantage to not be surprised imo if there is an attack signal.

Is this relevant? I don't see how. But I'm not sure why the sniper-critique either so who knows.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

The kobolds hide, and when the adventurers get into the ideal ambush spot the leader (from his heavily obscured area) yells "attack!" And the kobolds spring into action, ambushing the party.

There. I'm now accounting for the sniper-factor. It'd still be at advantage to not be surprised imo if there is an attack signal.

 No no no. Suprise isn't suddenly having an arrow shaft sticking out from your chest. Surprise is unexpectedly finding yourself about to be attacked.

If a group of Kobolds are hidden besides the road and the party doesn't perceive them then when the Kobolds surge forward out of hiding the party would be surprised even if the Kobolds start it off with a "sic 'em boys".
Of course as per the surprise rules if anyone in the party rolls high enough on Initiative to go ahead of the Kobolds then that (or those) individual(s) would stop being surprised at the end of its turn, but it would still have been surprised on its turn (and thus been restricted to no action or movement).
And if any of the party goes after the Kobolds then any features that applies against surprised enemies would apply against them.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

If you hide, you hide from everyone. The only way not to is to do a group skill check to hide together. But you'd need to be together. But you can't automatically see someone who is hiding just because they're friendly to you. If your party rogue tries to hide, and rolls well, above your passive perception... you don't know where they are just like the enemy doesn't know where they are. 

 But it isn't the on/off proposition you make it out to be.

If the party Rogue steps behind a pillar (or tree or wall or anything such) and then successfully hides from the Dragon they're fighting then he his hidden. However if the party Cleric is on the same side of said pillar (or whatever) and can clearly see the Rogue in-front of him then the Rogue isn't hidden from the Cleric and can thus be the target of a Healing Word without it in any way interfering with the Rogue being hidden from the Dragon.

Ones concealment can differ greatly depending on who's perspective you are looking from and this is something that you seem to completely disregard.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Deciding not to attack, after starting to attack and initiating combat, is exactly what "resolving events by initiative order" means. He tried to attack. Combat started. The situation changed and he adapted to the new situation, abandoning his attack, and did something else.

But he still started to attack. What else are his targets even reacting to if not his attempt to attack them?

 No, if you started to attack then you make your roll and see if you hit or not. You do not stop in the middle of swinging your sword and then suddenly do something else.

And I think this is the real issue here, you seem to be using a different meaning of some words and that gets you in trouble when your meaning and the meaning the rules use don't match up. It seems that both surprise and concealment has caused you some issues that I (and others it would seem) don't see. And I'm not saying that you are necessarily doing something wrong in your application of them, it just seems to me that you are finding issues and are having to adjust in ways that I don't see needed because the rules already allow for it. So it seems to me that this perhaps is more of a perceived problem than an actual one.

Quote from Thezzaruz>>

Quote from Ravnodaus>>

The kobolds hide, and when the adventurers get into the ideal ambush spot the leader (from his heavily obscured area) yells "attack!" And the kobolds spring into action, ambushing the party.

There. I'm now accounting for the sniper-factor. It'd still be at advantage to not be surprised imo if there is an attack signal.

 No no no. Suprise isn't suddenly having an arrow shaft sticking out from your chest. 

That is surprise and a low initiative. Yes it is.

Surprise is unexpectedly finding yourself about to be attacked.

This is surprise with a high initiative.

Quote from Thezzaruz>>

If a group of Kobolds are hidden besides the road and the party doesn't perceive them then when the Kobolds surge forward out of hiding the party would be surprised even if the Kobolds start it off with a "sic 'em boys".

Of course as per the surprise rules if anyone in the party rolls high enough on Initiative to go ahead of the Kobolds then that (or those) individual(s) would stop being surprised at the end of its turn, but it would still have been surprised on its turn (and thus been restricted to no action or movement).

And if any of the party goes after the Kobolds then any features that applies against surprised enemies would apply against them.

 And if you were to characterize a surprised party with high initiative it'd be: Surprised and finding yourself about to be attacked.

It seems to me it would be natural for players to try to engineer the start of combat in a way that benefits them the most. That being said, under normal circumstances, I call for initiative at the point where someone "tries something." Whereas the player might think they should get a free shot since they are cleverly initiating combat on their own terms, I feel this is best handled during the initiative process because maybe the guy they are about to pull their sword on is ready for them to make a move before he draws his own sword on them.

Quote from Lyxen>>

Quote from Ravnodaus>>

Quote from Lyxen>>

Ah, here you are, do you realise that there is a large difference between intending to attack and actually attacking ?

I thought I've been very explicit in explaining that when I say combat doesn't start until some attacks it means that start the process of attacking, but things are RESOLVED in the order of initiative.

You have been, which is fine, but has nothing to do with what I was teasing you about.

It is entirely possible to try to ambush someone, fail to surprise them, they win initiative, and drop their disguises on their turn revealing they're allies, and you on your initiative not following through on the attack you were making, and instead stop. Combat resolved. Cinematically, descriptively, you started to attack. That is the precipitating event that triggers the start of combat.

But if no one is even trying to attack anyone then it isn't a combat. 

At least you have shifted your position, but still not enough, what we are all trying to tell you is that it's not necessary to have an attack, not even necessary to try to attack, sometimes all it takes is the intent to attack, or even the possibility that someone might have the intent to attack.

It is more subtle than just attacking, and once more neither the rules nor the vocabulary support the fact that there needs to be an actual attack. The part were you were absolutely correct was when you said "Until a character has some intent to attack then..."

The main thing that we are trying to explain is that an intent is not an attack, the attack might come in at some point in the future, or might not even come at all, but the intent is enough to require the initiative to be rolled and the combat to start in technical terms.

Vocabulary does. Starting a 'combat' when there is no combat means it isn't 'combat'. This is tautologically true.

If you send out invites to a party, and the invite says party starts at 8! But no one shows up to start partying until 9. The party didn't actually start at 8, it started at 9.

If you start combat before anyone is actually going to fight, you mistimed things. It's a minor hiccup at best, and ain't anyone going to get mad about it, but you jumped the gun. It happens, it's no big deal.

Hmm, what's another way to put this... 

Combat.... contest. The outcome of events must be in contest. And the implement that one or both parties is using to sort out this contested future is: violence (or its D&D equivalent).  

It wasn't intended to be insulting, nor a strawman. If no one is fighting it isn't a combat.

Again, you are saying this as if it was a mantra, but it does not make it true. An assassin states "I am going to try to assassinate him", the DM rightly asks for initiative to be rolled, but in the end the assassins does not go through because the victim rolled a higher initiative (maybe sixth sense,  maybe he heard the faintest whisper without being able to place it, maybe he is just nervous). Initiative has been rolled, combat has started, and still, there will be no attack because the assassin does not want to forgo his advantage and the victim cannot find him.

Mantra? No. True because of what the word means? Yes. When you say there doesn't need to be fighting for there to be a combat... I'm afraid you're not using at least one of those words incorrectly.

See, your example is missing what the assassin's target does. They won initiative, they go first, they take no actions but are now on alert and ready to react. The assassin... just skips his first turn? Ok, but now its round 2 and his target can act. What's he do? Combat isn't over yet just because the assassin has a change of heart. Even if the target gives up his search for the would-be-assassin...

Regardless it doesn't change that narratively: The assassin still started to attack him. He just didn't execute it fast enough and bailed mid-attack. Maybe he lined up his crossbow, steadied his breath, and got ready to fire, but just at that exact moment his target spins, hand readied to unsheathe their sword, they scan the environment wildly, and the assassin realized his window to strike is over, lowing his weapon his bails on his shot, and tries to find a new opportunity to carry out his mission.

Combat can absolutely be like that. He tried to attack but missed his opportunity because we was too slow. But oh he tried.

I really don't understand why you think its a strawman either. You're saying combat doesn't require there to be combat. But it does. You don't start a combat for non-combat situations like this example.

It's a strawman because you are exaggerating opur position to ridicule it. Of course, we are not saying that combat needs to start in situations that have nothing to do with it, like talking to a barmaid. 

I'll give you an example that happened in one of our campaigns. An assassin prepares to attack his target. Unfortunately, he loses initiative, and therefore would miss some of his benefits. He decides not to attack, hoping that his target will quiet down and get another opportunity. Initiative has been rolled, there has been no attack, and neither will there be.

Deciding not to attack, after starting to attack and initiating combat, is exactly what "resolving events by initiative order" means. He tried to attack.

No, he did not. He just expressed the intention to attack, which is not the same thing.

Combat started. The situation changed and he adapted to the new situation, abandoning his attack, and did something else.

But he still started to attack. What else are his targets even reacting to if not his attempt to attack them? 

And again, he did not attack. He did not declare an attack. He certainly did not resolve one. So can you please explain why you insist on it being an attack, when, clearly and technically, there never was one ?

And I've had the other case recently, Party vs. some NPCs, thought it would be hostile, but just wanted to be prepared, and as a DM I thought it could go either way and wanted the PC to feel the pressure. So rolled for initiative, as there might have been an intent to attack. But in the end, the PCs were very reasonable, just went defensive, buffed and readied actions, so did the NPCs. There was combat in technical 5e terms, but not one single attack was made, and it was fully justified.

Sounds like a great and fun encounter. You used the combat rules to play it out, which is a fantastic adaptation of an existing rules system to implement your desired encounter effect. Good DMs adapt the rules to their storytelling needs all the time and the game is better for it.

But, it wasn't an actual combat. There were no combatants. It was a social encounter. A very tense and awkward social encounter. It could have played out without combat rules, though it is understandable to stitch together some special encounter functionality sometimes to really capture the desired mood, and if the desired mood is that 'this could turn into combat at any second' then more power to you for adapting combat rules to your social encounter.

Words, though, have definitions. And, combat doesn't mean: Posture menacingly while trying to figure out someone else's motivation.

Not at all, see below your own conclusions about heavily obscured areas. Moreover, the rules say: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly"

If you are behind a peephole you can see clearly and certainly cannot be seen clearly. It's not symmetrical.

Eh, obscured areas are defined differently. If you are within the area of obscurement you either benefit from them having disadvantage to see you or them being effective blind when looking into the area. But if your kobolds are in an area of heavy obscurement then the other kobolds most certainly can't see each other because they'd be treated as being blind when looking into your area.

Except that you know what ? Kobolds have darkvision. So they could be in an dark area (not magical), and still see each other, while their adversaries cannot see them at all because they don't have darkvision...

Obscurement rules work exactly like darkness. As bizarre and unintuitive as that might sound. Standing in a bush makes you unseeable, standing behind a bush and you're clear as day.

Again, your very partial reading of the rules shows. Please explain to me how you can see through something that BLOCKS VISION ENTIRELY: "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."

This is one effect. It blocks vision. On top of that, "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." But it is on top, not even the same sentence.

Look, you're not getting what I'm saying and are instead hyper fixating on something trivial. Which way you read it, you do you. I read that first sentence as descriptive, you read it as mechanical. Who cares. But either way you rule it is wrong because both ways are wrong. You're arguing my reading is wrong. Yes. Sure, fine... ALL readings are wrong. That's my whole point.

Okay, lets say a heavily obscured area does what you say, and blocks vision entirely. Darkness now blocks vision entirely. 

Walking around at night? You can't see the stars. You're in an area of darkness. Your vision is blocked entirely. Town lit up like a Christmas tree off in the distance? Still can't see it because the darkness you're in blocks vision entirely. You'd be unable, in a 200ft long pitch black cave, to see someone cast the Daylight spell on the other side. Because there would be a small amount of darkness between you and the blazing light of the day, which blocks vision through it (according to this, your, reading).

In a bush? You can't see out. Vision is entirely blocked.

So... whether you argue it blocks vision entirely or think that mean blocks vision entirely "into it" like I think it says... The thing that is important... here: Is that per the rules, darkness, fog, and bushes ALL function identically. (Except for in regards to what can get rid of them.) But they function, per raw, identically.

So either you can't see through an area of darkness like you obviously should be able to do, or you can... but can also see through bushes and fog... but not into bushes and fog, like how darkness should work.

Because they work identically, you either homebrew it, or one of them behaves really, really, really strange. 

If the kobolds can see each other then they're not well hidden. They have a passive perception of 8. Anything they're be able to spot the PCs are guaranteed to spot.

The kobolds are hidden behind a wall. They can see each other extremely clearly, but no one on the other side of the wall can see them, and this is true whatever level of perception everyone has.

And see peepholes above. You have to exercise your imagination here.

I know how I'd adjudicate it in practice. But I'm perfectly content discarding large swathes of the rules if it suits my desired story or intended game-mood. I was hoping to get clarification of the rules here though. Exercising my imagination doesn't drill into how the mechanics of the rules are intended to work.

Don't take me wrong, this is the right attitude. But you will have trouble convincing me that kobolds on one side of the wall, who can clearly see themselves perfectly, cannot be hidden from adventurers on the other side. Neither the rules nor simple logic prevent that.

there can only be 2 outcomes. Something is missing.

It should be:

1. PCs spot em at distance and react before combat.
2. PCs spot as they're attacked and aren't surprised.
3. PCs don't spot at all and are surprised.

But if nothing at all changes and we only check stealth vs passive perception there is only 2 outcomes.

1. and 3. Either spot well in advance or not at all.

There is an entire paragraph in the rules about the sequence of combat regarding determining surprise at the start of combat, there is no way that is there if it's impossible for situation 2 to occur.

Your sentence does not make any sense, sorry, and neither does your list of the conditions. This is not what the rules say. The rules only say that, at the start of combat, whether it's close or far, surprise is determined,  and some people will not act. There is no quantum gradation of distance "close" and "far".

That's exactly the problem. It just says "The DM determines the starting distance but doesn't explain how the DM determines the starting distance.

It is missing an instruction here.

Come on, this is not a board game, it's a roleplaying game where there can be an infinity of situations. There is no way such an instruction can be written. If you find one that works, in any roleplaying game worth of its name, please provide an example, but I'm pretty damn sure that it will not work even in a majority of cases. You might get a simple formula that works in an open plain without feature, but as soon as you factor in vegetation, lighting, constructions, it will stop making sense.

I've been seeking clarification on exactly that missing piece. I'm pretty sure there just isn't one so however I want to determine the starting distance is entirely up to me, so if I determine the starting distance with a second stealth roll then as far as I'm concerned that's RAW because it just says "The DM determines the starting distance" and is entirely silent on how, it seems.

Edit: I came back to expand on this. You're right. The rules at the START OF COMBAT says to check surprise. But stealth vs passive could and should already have happened before combat, as the PCs get close enough to detect the presence of enemies. If they fail here, then they are going to get ambushed. If they detect the threat here, combat hasn't even started yet. They could do all sorts of things, some might not cause a combat to even happen.

And I agree, which is why you will not find a formula that works for such a complex game.

But, assuming they fail that first stealth v perception, they will inevitably wander into the ambush. At THIS point we check for surprise or not surprise. That, is, again, the stealth v perception. The exact same thing we just did like 30 ft earlier, up the road a little ways.

And once more the rules do not tell you to roll anything, just to check whether the EXISTING stealth roll is still (or not, due to possibly changing circumstances) higher than the PP.

If nothing changes with these checks, then situation 2 is impossible. And, if situation 2 is impossible then why are we repeating the stealth v perception if the outcome is already set in stone? We already knew they didn't detect them 30ft up the road why are we checking the stealth again ow at the start of combat. Doesn't make sense. There needs to be some possible route to reach situation 2 as a possible outcome.

I see no such need. Why should there be ? The PCs have been progressing. At the point of the attack, either they know the foes are there or they don't. I see no rationale for giving anyone another chance exactly at this stage.

This is a very very narrow reading of the rules. Do you really think that the rules tell you that two creatures can not hide from enemies if they are together and can see each other ?

If you think that it's the case, the rules are really, really stupid, but fortunately they don't say that.

If you hide, you hide from everyone. The only way not to is to do a group skill check to hide together. But you'd need to be together. But you can't automatically see someone who is hiding just because they're friendly to you. If your party rogue tries to hide, and rolls well, above your passive perception... you don't know where they are just like the enemy doesn't know where they are. 

Prove it to me from the rules. Prove to me that your friendly rogue who is sitting just besides you but behind a wall from the enemy cannot be hidden from the enemy because you can see him.

Entirely behind a wall? They're out of line of sight entirely. That's not hidden, that's gone.

Because once more, this would be stupid, and my reading of them is that they don't say anything stupid like this.

That being said, I'm not saying either that you have to know where your friendly rogue is when he is in another room, hiding behind a pillar. The game does not give you omniscience either.

But it's again a demonstration that the game is trying to model something that has so many cases and options that the rules cannot cover every case, only a DM can do this and make the difference.

Hiding is what you do when someone could detect you and you act in a way so as to reduce the chance of them detecting you. If you cannot be detected, you're not necessarily hidden. You're simply outside of their range of perception. You could hide in advance, so that if someone's range of perception does enter the same area you occupy their chance of detecting you is reduced. Yes. But while you are outside of their range of perception is isn't the hiding that keeps them from detecting you, it is the outside their range of perception thing.

If you hide, you are attempting to avoid detection. Your roll represents how well you do.

It works against allies. How well or kindly someone regards you has no interaction with how well your character can hide himself.

Now, that's not to say you can hide in plain sight. Obviously you can't. So if you are in plain sight of an ally then they detect, just the same as if you are in plain sight of an enemy. There is no distinction made in stealth for if you respect one another or want to kill one another. 

I'm starting to think I had it right from the start. Stealth check once when they lie in wait, and then another when they try to attack without giving away their positions at the start of combat. Idk.

You know what's really crazy? Rereading all this obscurement, cover, hiding rules makes me realize the this areas of the rules really is super broken. Ex.

They are not reading all of them at the same time, proof below.

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

This... this quite literally means that you can't see someone standing IN a bush, but can see someone standing behind that same bush.

No,because it blocks vision, highlighted for you.

Darkness doesn't block vision through it.

First, very clearly, we were not talking about darkness, we were talking about a bush. So do we agree that it blocks vision, the first sentence is 100% clear.

It blocks vision into it. The sentence immediately after your red highlight tells you exactly what it means on a mechanical rules level.

The two sentences are separate. The first one talks about the fact that some phenomenons block vision. A bush blocks vision, it fills some space. Fog, also filling some space, blocks vision.

Now, do you consider that air blocks it space ? No. Light, coming from afar, can still go through the air and reach your eyes, therefore that air is not in darkness, since it's illuminated.

This is the major difference with a spell like darkness, which fills a volume with darkness. Since it's filled, it blocks your vision. 

Interesting homebrew rule. The actual rule clearly says they all three behave identically. So if a bush blocks vision through it, so does darkness. 

lol... what I'm saying is this section MUST be homebrewed or one or more of those heavy obscurements causes wonky bahaviour.

Trying to see something within the area is impossible. Says nothing for something beyond the area. Nor should it. You can see the guy carrying a lantern on the other side of a pitch dark cavern just fine... just not the assassin lurking in the darkness halfway between you two in the middle of the darkness area of the cavern.

I'm sorry, but in my game, you could certainly see the silhouette of the assassin if there is a light source behind it. This is because there is nothing specific creating the darkness, it's merely the absence of light in some areas, but in that case, there is light. It might be faint, but there is nothing to block it.

In other words, do not confuse light and vision, they are not the same thing.

I, too, homebrew the obscurement rules into make sense.

I didn't write these rules man. But bushes and fog do the same thing as natural darkness, per the rules. Make sense? Nope.

the thing is that you are confusing vision and light. They do the same for vision, but the main difference is that light is blocked from entering a bush or fog or magical darkness (because it specifically spreads in a volume), whereas there is absolutely zero problem for it being seen in the air in an area which is illuminated by light, by its very definition.

That being said, I agree that, in this specific area, the rules could have been better written. Still, again, no one at our tables has ever had the smallest problem with this in our games.

Because it classified obcurement as an area of effect basically, and the foliage only obscures the area it is in. We know that's what it means because that's actually a correct interpretation for darkness. Standing in an area of darkness makes you impossible to see but standing in the illuminated area behind the patch of darkness and now you can be seen again.

This game is broken I'm just going to default to:

HIDING

The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.

That is absolutely the right thing to do, but the rules are fine, they just don't cover the multiplicity of edge cases that happen when you start using stealth and hiding. Previous editions had more complex rules but they had just more complicated edge cases to solve because players thought they could interpret some rules their own way, generating tons of ruleslawyering and not solving anything more.

I really don't think the rules are fine unless the DM makes a LOT of stuff up to fill in the gaps and also just straight up ignores some rules.

And because it's precisely the intent of the design that this is not a boardgame but tries to simulate an infinity of situations, and that therefore this is one of the reasons that there is a DM, the rules are absolutely fine and consistent with their design.

Yeah, but it creates this exact issue. I've been doing things a certain way for years and then get told I'm doing it wrong. But, if this whole section of the rules needs to be ad hoc'd then is there even really a wrong way of doing it? I know it isn't a boardgame but it isn't even trying to get things to make sense and seems to just accept that its own rules here suck and we'll all just figure out out on our own.

To make the vison stuff work in a believable way you must:

• Treat areas behind Cover like direction-dependent obscured areas

No you don't. There is no link between cover and vision except for the (and I agree that this is a word that would have been benefited from a different writing, even JC says so) bad use of the "concealed" word in the cover section.

Apart from that, there is absolutely zero need for such a silly ruling. The only thing that the rules need to say, and they do, is that "you cannot hide from someone that can see you clearly". But just as there can be lots of reasons for someone being blind, there can be even more reasons for not seeing someone, and they don't have to relate to obscurement.

• Treat obscured areas like cover, but only sometimes and only in some ways

And again, there is absolutely zero reason for this.

I mean, another example how weird these rues are is per the default rules you would have to take an actual Action to roll Stealth and hide, even if you were invisible in an area of darkness and against a character in an area of silence. It's impossible for them to detect you in any way. But, per the rules, you still need to take an action to hide... and you can fail. It's silly really. This whole part of the rules is lacking or nonsensical.

No, because again you are not reading all the rules. That is the problem honestly with 95% of the people on these forums. I'm not saying that it's the case for you, but a lot of people here come to brag that they are extremely clever because they spotted a flaw in the design of the game, when in fact all they show is that they are not even able to read the rulebook from beginning to end without forgetting half the rules along the way.

The rules say that you also need to take into action advantages and disadvantages, and circumstances. And they tell you that: "Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."

So if the DM wants someone to be automatically hidden because the circumstances say so, HE CAN. And yes, without a stealth check. These are the rules, straight from the books, although admittedly from a section that people don't want to read because it throws a large spanner in their little rules-lawyering constructions.

I do this all the time in practice. If you're behind a wall and motionless, you're not only hidden but undetectable. You automatically succeed on a stealth check whether you meant to even do a stealth check or not. But, only for default vision obviously. If a creature can still detect you with like scent or whatever that's different. But in practice, some things are just automatic and rolls are pointless.

But... when discussing the actual rules, and parsing them, they do lead to some wonky, but RAW, results. The above is just one such bizarre result. I don't know a DM who would actually enforce RAW there, but... if you are discussing the RAW, then, you can't just pretend that the results of the RAW aren't what they are. You can accept both that the rules produce silly results sometimes and also accept that if they would it's also your job to fix it narratively anyway. You can hold both of these opinions. It's possible, I promise.

Again, I'm not saying that it's your case, your attitude is much humbler than most of the complainers around here, people who, although unable to design something even a fraction as successful as the game, still strut around claiming that the rules are a hot pile of ... and that the designers are lazy.

But if you really take the rules as a whole, what you are saying above simply cannot exist. If you think that someone invisible in an area of silence cannot be detected, then just don't allow him to be detected. Or you could still roll, with advantage or not, because maybe someone has devil's sight and can see the track he leaves, or maybe someone has an incredible sense of smell.

So many cases, no rulebook could ever cover them all.

I parse things in a certain way that is rigid and mechanical, when discussing the text of the rules themselves. But, in practice, I freely throw away any ruleset I have even the slightest beef with. So I fully acknowledge that there are as many ways as there are DMs to handle things and do think the books go out of their way to reinforce the idea that DMs are ultimately the judge of how something goes and have free reign to just decide things without even consulting any rule or system of whatever. That's fantastic, and I like that they reiterate over and over to really drive that point home.

That said, I also turn that bit of my practical advice off when specifically discussing the rules themselves and instead look at them analytically, mechanically, like bits of code or math equation. If this, then that. Not always because that's how I'll end up doing things myself, but, if discussing the written words up the pages then you sorta have to look at them that way, otherwise what are you even really talking about? There are different lenses to view them through. You could analyze them strictly by RAW, try to suss out what the RAI were, or even discuss them in a practical "I'll do that in my games" lens. They're all valid conversations to have so long as everyone knows which everyone is discussing. Which, from my experience, is often where things fall apart.

Any DM with any sense naturally ignores and homebrews these inconsistencies out. Based on a few of your above points, you seem to be doing it without even realizing you're doing it. More power to you.

These are not inconsistencies. They only appear to be from very partial reading of the rules. It's like the unification theory in physics, looking at only the pieces, we don't see how they fit together. But one day, there will be a unifying theory that explains it all, and there will be no problem.

 Well, yes, true, but only from the perspective that the 'rules say' that DMs are final arbiters so whatever they say goes. Technically everything a DM does is correct by RAW because the RAW says DMs can do anything.

But... I don't know anyone who says lets discuss the RAW in D&D and then means "lets discuss my DM's homebrew". Technically, sure, his homebrew falls under the clause of the rules that he's right. But no one means that. They want to discuss what's actually printed in the book. And what's printed in the book has inconsistencies and holes in it. Ones most people fix as they go. But just because people fix them in practice doesn't mean they're not printed in the books.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

That is surprise and a low initiative. Yes it is.

This is surprise with a high initiative.

 Yea sorry, I was a bit unclear. Should have said "Suprise isn't JUST suddenly having an arrow shaft sticking out from your chest. " and "Surprise is ALSO unexpectedly finding yourself about to be attacked.". But it's good that we can agree that both are examples of Surprise.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Eh, disagree. Being loud tends to ruin stealth in my games. Initiative sorts out who does what in which order.

I'm somewhat surprised at this tbh. The thread started with you thinking it wrong that your players got an second chance at not being surprised. But it is you that are giving them that second chance by adding a second opportunity to spot the ambush.
When the Kobolds charge down combat is starting, if the party haven't spotted them before that they should be surprised, not get a second chance to spot the ambush. Initiative alone cannot sort out the stuff that Surprise is about.

If you want to give the party several chances to spot the ambush on their way towards it that's fine (like Lyxen talked about disadvantage/not/advantage) but that has to be before the ambush. If you allow the party a chance to spot the ambush while it is taking place then you have pretty much decided beforehand that Surprise isn't happening. But that is because of your decision, not because of a problem with the rules.

Quote from Thezzaruz>>

When the Kobolds charge down combat is starting, if the party haven't spotted them before that they should be surprised, not get a second chance to spot the ambush. Initiative alone cannot sort out the stuff that Surprise is about.

Combat rules disagree. Step one is to determine if either side is surprised at the start of combat. It's step 1. 

If you want to give the party several chances to spot the ambush on their way towards it that's fine (like Lyxen talked about disadvantage/not/advantage) but that has to be before the ambush.

If you allow the party a chance to spot the ambush while it is taking place then you have pretty much decided beforehand that Surprise isn't happening. But that is because of your decision, not because of a problem with the rules.

 That's, again, combat rules step 1. I didn't write the rules. Step 1: Check if surprised or not.

I refuse to believe that a correct reading of how to do this includes it being impossible for them to be not surprised at the start of combat when that is step... one... of the combat rules.

Ok.  So.  You have your ambush set up.  The Kobolds are hidden, you have checked to see if the party spotted them.  You have decided they are going to attack.  You say "roll for initiative".

Combat officially begins.  Step 1.  Check for surprise.  Ok...  Already did that.  I think someone may be confused just because they are not realizing that the list is a generic list for *all* combats, and as such, even if you know Surprise is checked, you are gently reminded that it should be checked.  You don't roll anything again.  You just internally check that off and move on to the next step.

Had you not set the ambush up in advance, this might be relevant.  Since it is not in this case, you can go about your business.  Move along.

Quote from Lyxen>>

Quote from Ravnodaus>>

But not just an intent, it has to be a contest between both sides.

Again no, it does not. Combat can be initiated by one side only, because it has the intent or maybe just the opportunity to attack.

Having an intent is meaningless if the other side of the 'combat' doesn't know it. There is no reason for combat, or initiative, because no one is reacting to anything until someone does something that precipitates the combat.

And again no, I have given you two examples of combat being initiated for very good reasons without any attack being launched.

 

Ok, simple example, two fighters start combat, circling each other and evaluating their adversaries. You see this all the time in the genre. Combat has obviously started, yet, no attacks have been launched.

That is now three very clear examples of combat launched without any attack being made, and still you persist in saying that it's not combat ?

That is not combat, correct. That is two men dancing.

Hmm, what's another way to put this... 

Combat.... contest. The outcome of events must be in contest. And the implement that one or both parties is using to sort out this contested future is: violence (or its D&D equivalent).  

And again, you are shifting your position, which shows that it must be inconfortable. Stop trying to impose things without any backing, because again, the fight that there might be a contest does not mean that there are attacks.

I'm not shifting my position I'm trying to help you understand it. When someone doesn't understand something you can't just repeating it in the same way, you have to try to rephrase it in hopes they'll see the where you're going and why.

To be combat, someone needs to attack. It isn't combat before that, because there isn't fighting... you know, the thing the word combat means.

Now, there could be only the intent to attack someone, that is detected by them somehow, which could be the precipitating cause of the combat, as they decide to attack you in that instant before you actually hit with your attack. But they have to detect it. You have to show it. You cannot attack someone undetected unless you win a stealth check and initiative check.

If someone wins initiative against you, think about what narrative we're abstracting here. You tried to sucker-punch them, but they got a jab in before you could. But, in the narrative, of course you were taking a swing at em. You just broadcast your punch too much and they were too fast for you. But you absolutely tried to punch them. Its why they punched you.

Mantra? No. True because of what the word means? Yes. When you say there doesn't need to be fighting for there to be a combat... I'm afraid you're not using at least one of those words incorrectly.

Again, a very narrwo view of the words. Troops are fighting in a city. There is combat between forces. Does this mean that everyone is attacking all the time ? Certainly not.

See, your example is missing what the assassin's target does. They won initiative, they go first, they take no actions but are now on alert and ready to react.

Yep. They can't do anything as per the rule, because it's the first round of COMBAT and they were surprised. So no attack. Clear ?

The assassin... just skips his first turn?

Not necessarily. Maybe he readies an attack. Maybe he repositions. Maybe he just waits.

Ok, but now its round 2 and his target can act. What's he do? Combat isn't over yet just because the assassin has a change of heart. Even if the target gives up his search for the would-be-assassin...

And then the target searches for the assassin (it's his action) and STILL NOT ATTACK ! Convinced yet ?

No because the assassin's initial attack is what alerted him, just because the assassin bailed on squeezing the trigger didn't mean he wasn't trying to. he was just too slow to squeeze it in time.

Regardless it doesn't change that narratively: The assassin still started to attack him.

NO HE DID NOT ! You know exactly what the assassin did, did he declare an attack ? Did he roll one ? NO. So not attack, sorry.

Then we didn't roll initiative if he didn't try to attack.

He just didn't execute it fast enough and bailed mid-attack.

NO ! He did not even act, as the target is still unaware of him.  My god, how can you say that the assassin attacked ? 

I never said he 'attacked'. Pay closer attention to the word tenses when talking about something like this. "Attacked" is past tense, and at no time did I say he completed the action. He "started" the action.

Rounds take 6 seconds. Your entire turn's actions take up that full 6 seconds. Your initiative count is when your actions resolve chronologically, but you don't perform 6 full seconds of actions in a split second... narrative-wise.

We start the initiative roll when the assassin declares his attack. At this point he is starting the attack. Immediately. But... it is resolved on his initiative count. because people aren't The Flash, and they take time to actually carry out their actions.

So the assassin begins the motions of his attack. Whether that's popping up to fire or whatever. He starts. The other person now reacts, and if they win the initiative check they react so fast it happens before the assassin's attack carries out. You have an assassin now mid-attack and their target knows something is afoul and clearly is now able to respond. AND if you say they're not reacting or responding then why is the assassin not attacking on his turn exactly?? The only thing that has changed to cause him to not attack is the fact his target is now poised to fight back, right? That's exactly what he's bailing for... the thing that happens because the target realized he was in danger and is now able to respond.

So mid-attack the assassin realizes his target spotted something amiss and is now combat-stanced, well heck, time bail on the attack and try again later.

I'd argue the target even knows where you are, too, BTW. They see your bow peeking around the corner or something after the surprise ends. You're still technically hidden but they FOR SURE know something is very very wrong here. They're ready to tangle, 100%, after that surprise ends, I see no reason to make them behave like video game mobs. You just tried, and failed, to get the jump on them. Failed checks have consequences.

Maybe he lined up his crossbow, steadied his breath, and got ready to fire, but just at that exact moment his target spins, hand readied to unsheathe their sword, they scan the environment wildly, and the assassin realized his window to strike is over, lowing his weapon his bails on his shot, and tries to find a new opportunity to carry out his mission.

And therefore HE DID NOT ATTACK!

Tenses my man, tenses. He attacked. He didn't finish an attack. You're thinking only in mechanical combat terms, and not the narrative. He is attacking. Present infinitive tense. His situation changes and so he bails on his action mid-attack, before completing it, to do something else on his turn instead. Nothing wrong with that, but just because you don't finish an action doesn't mean you didn't start the action.

If I'm 20 minutes into my 30 minute bike ride to work, I'm riding my bike to work. But, if my gear jam up and handlebars fall of and tires implode, then call an Uber the rest of the way... It'd be a lie to say i rode my bike to work.

Do you see it? It can be true to be doing something and not be true that you completed that something. He starts to attack, is too slow, and the situation changed, causing him to change actions. So he never "attacked", but he did "start to attack".

Tenses.

Combat can absolutely be like that. He tried to attack but missed his opportunity because we was too slow. But oh he tried.

No he did not. You are trying to wiggle through here but all it gives is inconsistency, in one paragraphs you explicitly said that he prepared an attack and did not carry through, and in the next one you suddenly claim that he did.

Please re-read what you are writing, it is inconsistent. You are wrong in all this argument.

I've been 100% consistent.

I really don't understand why you think its a strawman either. You're saying combat doesn't require there to be combat. But it does. You don't start a combat for non-combat situations like this example.

It's a strawman because you are exaggerating opur position to ridicule it. Of course, we are not saying that combat needs to start in situations that have nothing to do with it, like talking to a barmaid. 

I'll give you an example that happened in one of our campaigns. An assassin prepares to attack his target. Unfortunately, he loses initiative, and therefore would miss some of his benefits. He decides not to attack, hoping that his target will quiet down and get another opportunity. Initiative has been rolled, there has been no attack, and neither will there be.

Deciding not to attack, after starting to attack and initiating combat, is exactly what "resolving events by initiative order" means. He tried to attack.

No, he did not. He just expressed the intention to attack, which is not the same thing.

Expressed. Boom.

So for you "expressing an intention to attack" is the same thing as "attacking" ? I think we can stop this discussion right now, please start discussing in good faith, OK ?

Oh not at all. It only becomes a combat when either side tries to attack. An intent to attack that is detected could be sufficient for: The other side to attack.

But if neither is attacking, then it isn't a combat.

I am discussing this in good faith, and I'm fairly sure you'll understand it if you try to. I wouldn't spend this much time nor effort if I thought you weren't able to get it, and especially not if I was discussing it in bad faith? You kidding? I'd say like "lul nope ur wrong pal" and move on...

Yes, exactly. He is made manifest his attack into the world.

Intent alone doesn't do it. The attack has begun, it is being expressed.

No. Expressing an intention and doing something are not the same things by any stretch.

You're right, I was in the frame of reference of the aggressor. The aggressor can spark combat with only expressed intent, if their target is a proper scrappy lad. The target will try to attack first instead, which is what combat starts with. Their attack.

Sorry if I got sloppy there, the assassin scenario got me stuck in the "trying to assassinate" mindset when I wrote that bit.

The other combatants are reacting to something, the imminent attack is what they are reacting to. Even if it is just a knowing glimmer in the man's eye, the attack is underway and they can react to it. Their reaction might change his plan, abandoning his attack. 

And if the attack was abandonned before it even started,, IT NEVER EXISTED in the first place, just an intention.

Eh, it existed enough to tip off the other side that it was go time. It existed.

Imagine you have a player that has an audience with a guard captain or something and there are soldiers n whatnot around. Imagine he says: I attack the guard captain. Initiative, right? If he loses initiative do the soldiers try to stop him? Of course they do. Of course they do. You're damned right they do.  But okay, then, lets instead say he wins initiative and goes first. And declares his action is to stand there like nothing is happening and continuing to chat with the captain.

Do you see the issue?

There is absolutely no issue whatsoever. The attacker has not even drawn his sword ! If the guards jump at him preventively and kill him his attack will not even have occured !

Of course we start combat when his attack has started.

No we don't, that's what you don't understand despite everyone telling you how wrong you are on this topic.

He  might have had the INTENTION of attacking, but it's not the same thing as attacking (and honestly, if you continue to pretend it's the same thing, I'm out, I can only stomach so much bad faith in a day).

And the guards detected his intention, and jumped him preventively, but the guy certainly did not attack. 

It's not bad faith but you do you man. I'm trying to help you at this point. I'm not in the least bit confused about when initiative starts but I know a lot of people who are.

He did something that alerts everyone that he is attacking. That's why you're rolling initiative.

I'm NOT saying he gets to complete an attack before combat starts. I AM saying that his physical body has begun the motion of drawing his sword, lunging forward, and killing the captain. Wy? Because that's what the player just said they're doing. BUT. We resolve these things with combat rules.

So when he says "I attack the guard captian" he does. He starts his attack. The dude gets to control his character and if he says he attacks, he attacks. But we freeze frame right there, mid action, to resolve things. Enter: Combat rules. We roll initiative and go in initiative order. If the guards go first, they're reacting to the player's action of trying to draw hiw weapon and kill the guard captain. Just because they're faster than he is doesn't nullify his attempt. It just potentially changes the outcome, the result.

The switch from non-combat to combat is when someone declares their character is attacking. It's the only place that even makes sense to do it. Until then, it isn't a fight. It isn't a battle. it isn't... combat.

It is what the soldiers would be reacting to. And even if he wins initiative and changes his mind, his character did something already

Maybe, but if you continue to pretend that it's an attack, it's simply ridiculous, especially in terms of 5e, where an attack is clearly defined. Did he roll an attack roll ? No, so there was no attack. Full stop.

Yeah this is where you're mixing up narrative with mechanics. Narratively, he is attacking. I've used the word "narratively" an uncomfortable number of times for you to be entirely disregarding it and pretending Im trying to argue that he's 'successfully made an attack roll' or whatever. No. No. His action happens on his turn. If using the word "attack" is all you're reacting to... his ... uh, other words... uh... his [combat-related hostile motions that could result in harm to another creature if they are carried out] have started already.

that would have provoked a response. He can't play innocent now. (Well, maybe he could with a deception check to alleviate any concerns he just caused by lunging forward suddenly for a ft and a half and then composing himself again like nothing happened)

Of course he can play the innocent ! His weapon is not even drawn !

If the other side has nothing to react to they wouldn't be rolling initiative. Something has happened at the exact moment that we freeze frame and slip into combat frame of reference. Otherwise there is nothing for the winning initiative side to do if they're not the aggressor. You've mistimed it.

Please stop pretending that what happened was an attack, that's all, otherwise prove it. Was there an attack roll ? NO, so no attack.

I've never said he completed it. Again the narrative vs mechanical.

And I've had the other case recently, Party vs. some NPCs, thought it would be hostile, but just wanted to be prepared, and as a DM I thought it could go either way and wanted the PC to feel the pressure. So rolled for initiative, as there might have been an intent to attack. But in the end, the PCs were very reasonable, just went defensive, buffed and readied actions, so did the NPCs. There was combat in technical 5e terms, but not one single attack was made, and it was fully justified.

Sounds like a great and fun encounter. You used the combat rules to play it out, which is a fantastic adaptation of an existing rules system to implement your desired encounter effect. Good DMs adapt the rules to their storytelling needs all the time and the game is better for it.

But, it wasn't an actual combat.

I'm sorry, but in 5e terms, it was exactly a combat. Initiative was rolled, COMBAT actions were taken. In 5e, you can only do that in combat.

You're supposed to homebrew stuff in 5e, more power to you. It isn't a dig, it sounds like a great homebrewed non-combat encounter.

There were no combatants.

All the combattants rolled initiative, used combat actions, cast spells, etc. The very definition of combat in 5e. 

Combatant: "a person or nation engaged in fighting"

There were no combatants. You had noncombatants roll initiative, and then not attack or fight, so it never was nor did it become a combat.

Combat: "fighting between armed forces"

D&D was written using plain English, and what you're saying makes absolutely no sense in English.

You're saying: "The combatants fought a combat and it wasn't a fight, resolving without one among them attacking or battling in any conceivable way"

That's a nonsense statement. People who attack each other are combatants and when they do so its a combat. Plain English.

It was a social encounter. A very tense and awkward social encounter. It could have played out without combat rules, though it is understandable to stitch together some special encounter functionality sometimes to really capture the desired mood, and if the desired mood is that 'this could turn into combat at any second' then more power to you for adapting combat rules to your social encounter.

Words, though, have definitions. And, combat doesn't mean: Posture menacingly while trying to figure out someone else's motivation.

I would really like to see you play Lot5R, with psychic combat, it would be really fun. Honestly, I'm out, your definition of combat is your own, have fun playing with yourself, you are alone in this, and certainly not in line with the RAW.

Dude it's the English language's definition... No way I'm alone in this. You're talking nonsense about noncombatants being combatants and non-combats being combats. It's like you're intentionally ignoring the very basic definition of those words. Not MY definitions. THE definitions.

Obscurement rules work exactly like darkness. As bizarre and unintuitive as that might sound. Standing in a bush makes you unseeable, standing behind a bush and you're clear as day.

Again, your very partial reading of the rules shows. Please explain to me how you can see through something that BLOCKS VISION ENTIRELY: "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."

This is one effect. It blocks vision. On top of that, "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." But it is on top, not even the same sentence.

Look, you're not getting what I'm saying and are instead hyper fixating on something trivial. Which way you read it, you do you. I read that first sentence as descriptive, you read it as mechanical.

This is 5e that uses plain english. PROVE TO ME THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE IS ONLY DESCRIPTIVE. It's not

Dude. Wait, you KNOW 5e uses plain English and yet insist that Combats aren't... "fighting between armed forces"????? How? And combatants aren't "a person or nation engaged in fighting"????

There is NO WAY you beleive ANY of this. You're operating under the exact opposite of what those words mean and think that's the plain English interpretation???

Combats have fighitng in them. Combatants are the people who are fighting. Plain English.

Who cares. But either way you rule it is wrong because both ways are wrong. You're arguing my reading is wrong. Yes. Sure, fine... ALL readings are wrong. That's my whole point.

And once more, you are not proving anything apart from the fact that, indeed, readings are wrong when they read only half the sentences in the books.

 

Okay, lets say a heavily obscured area does what you say, and blocks vision entirely. Darkness now blocks vision entirely. 

Walking around at night? You can't see the stars. You're in an area of darkness. Your vision is blocked entirely. Town lit up like a Christmas tree off in the distance? Still can't see it because the darkness you're in blocks vision entirely. You'd be unable, in a 200ft long pitch black cave, to see someone cast the Daylight spell on the other side. Because there would be a small amount of darkness between you and the blazing light of the day, which blocks vision through it (according to this, your, reading).

Please don't try to explain to me what my reading is. I'm reading all the sentences, not only the ones that fall right into my confirmation bias. Does simple darkness occupy space ?

You claim heavy obscurement blocks vision. ALL vision. Darkness is heavy obscurement. Therefore, you claim darkness blocks all vision.

No, there is just air that is permeable to light from the stars, so you see them.

Now, if there is a magical darkness that occupies the space, it's a different matter. But for it to be inconsistent, please prove to me that normal darkness occupies space like fog or a bush or magical darkness. 

Why is the darkness spell different? Sure it says a creature with Darkvision can't see through it. It doesn't say a normal guy with normal vision can't see through it.

In a bush? You can't see out. Vision is entirely blocked.

If you are in the middle of the bush, yes. If you are close to the edge, no. And this is why there are TWO SEPARATE SENTENCES, both meaningful. The first one says that you cannot see THROUGH a bush (logical, no ?) and the second one says that you cannot see INSIDE the bush (which is kind of logical as well). But there is nothing saying that you cannot see OUTSIDE of the bush from within, as long as a major part of the bush is not in your face.

If you're in the bush, then you can't see through the bush. Because you're trying to see through the area of heavy obscurement. If you're sticking part of yourself out of the bush then someone has a chance to see you because that part of you isn't being seen though heavy obscurement nor in an area of obscurement. The instant a potion of you is outside that bush you're visible.

Come on, it's extremely easy to understand, but I agree that it's harder if you only read one sentence out of two.

It is easy to understand I agree.

So... whether you argue it blocks vision entirely or think that mean blocks vision entirely "into it" like I think it says... The thing that is important... here: Is that per the rules, darkness, fog, and bushes ALL function identically. (Except for in regards to what can get rid of them.) But they function, per raw, identically.

They function identically when their areas are identical. It's usually not the case with normal darkness, although it is with magical one, because it's a sphere.

Okay, finally accepting that darkness, per raw, behaves identically to fog or bushes. Great. I'm assuming you agree they shouldn't, realistically, behave identically, though. So we have an accord on this matter.

If there is suddenly a wall in the middle of the wilderness along a path the adventurers are walking, you can bet I'll give them advantage on their perception check, or just have them roll perception instead of using their passive perception because of the new and active stimuli they'd be on the active lookout.

Bad faith again. Why are we suddenly in the wilderness? Moreover yes, there could be a wall, maybe just of bushes. 

And it's incredible how generous you want to be to adventurers. Are you a DM or only a player ? Do you assume that PCs are on high alert because suddenly, there are a few bushes along the road ? And why would that give them advantage ? This is getting more and more ridiculous.

It was always wilderness, they're kobolds. We've been discussing bushes, and you brought up a wall. So I say, okay, an actual wall in the middle of no where, that's suspicious, or at the very least: Noteworthy.

Players use their passive perception to represent their normal all-the-time ability to perceive the world around them, passively. Travelling down a normal road in the countryside all day? passive perception.

But NOT of something unique is happening. Like all of a sudden there being a wall in the middle of nowhere. This is now an encounter. Might not be a combat encounter, might not even be an interesting encounter. But it is one. PCs would have cause to be on alert here. If you described this to your plyers, that up ahead an ancient wall begins and runs paralell to the path for a ways. Do... do you players just ignore that without doing anything, saying anything?? I know for a fact mine would say they scan around and ask more about what they see.

That's active perception.

This is how the rules work.

But as for: "Are you a DM or only a player ?"

I'm both. I've been playing D&D since 2nd edition.

But, if we did go through the motions of this new wall hypothetical, mechanically, I'd not say they're hidden from the PCs so much as I'd say they're entirely out of line of sight and impossible to be detected by sight. But that they'd need to move before being able to attack because they can't attack through total cover, so choose a very poor ambush spot.

Please start reading the rules, all of them, not just the ones that fall in your confirmation bias. Someone hidden behind a wall can attack from the top without being detected.

Yes, it's in the rules.

Why would I disagree with this lol.

He is only detected AFTER the attack is rolled (so it's launched with advantage) : "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" (just peeking on top of the wall does not allow anyone to see you CLEARLY), "If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Honestly, the problem is that you do not know the rules well at all, but you still argue as if you knew everything by heart. But it's not the case. Read them front to back, and go listen to a few podcasts, please.

I understand initiative rofl. I've not claimed to know all rules. But I know initiative dead to rights. Nothing at all supports this notion of yours that you start combat when there isn't a fight. I'm not coming at you hard for it, nor trying to be insulting about it either. But you are wrong. How wrong? Completely. How serious a mistake is it? It isn't really. If it makes things easier for you, just do it, that's fine. Is it right... by RAW? Naw. But your game, your rules.

Just put yourself in the frame of reference of the assassin's target. You're walking along and suddenly: Nothing? You continue to go about your buisness because nothing whatever in any way transpired. (even though you rolled initiative and were 'surprised" by nothing?)

Okay, sure I guess. Not how I'd rule it but hell, lets roll with it. Why did the assassin stop then?

If nothing happened with his target and he just carried on as if nothing happened. Why didn't the assassin attack when he said he was attacking? He stopeed because why? Specifically. What in-game narrative reason caused him to change actions?

It doesn't make any sense my man. None at all.

 

The PCs would react to the odd encounter with a wall, and the kobolds would need to scramble into decent attack positions. So they're basically pre-stealth action at this point. Really poor planning on their part.

Honestly, unless your next post is less of a bad faith argument where you constantly invent new reasons for giving advantage to players, I will not respond to it.

Eh, I wasn't sold on giving them advantage but...weirdly, you were the one to suggest it back on page one. It hadn't even occured to me to do it until then. And I was never really satisfied with that approach because I'm not sure they should have advantage in that situation. Its "a" way to get the 3 outcomes, and its a "fast and easy" way too. But, the situation of a normal ambush shouldn't rightly automatically have advantage. So its a bad but easy fix. And, I really can't reiterate this empatically enough but, you suggested I was overlooking advantage/disadvantage so this reaction to talking about maybe using it is... odd.

there can only be 2 outcomes. Something is missing.

It should be:

1. PCs spot em at distance and react before combat.
2. PCs spot as they're attacked and aren't surprised.
3. PCs don't spot at all and are surprised.

But if nothing at all changes and we only check stealth vs passive perception there is only 2 outcomes.

1. and 3. Either spot well in advance or not at all.

There is an entire paragraph in the rules about the sequence of combat regarding determining surprise at the start of combat, there is no way that is there if it's impossible for situation 2 to occur.

Your sentence does not make any sense, sorry, and neither does your list of the conditions. This is not what the rules say. The rules only say that, at the start of combat, whether it's close or far, surprise is determined,  and some people will not act. There is no quantum gradation of distance "close" and "far".

That's exactly the problem. It just says "The DM determines the starting distance but doesn't explain how the DM determines the starting distance.

It is missing an instruction here.

Come on, this is not a board game, it's a roleplaying game where there can be an infinity of situations. There is no way such an instruction can be written. If you find one that works, in any roleplaying game worth of its name, please provide an example, but I'm pretty damn sure that it will not work even in a majority of cases. You might get a simple formula that works in an open plain without feature, but as soon as you factor in vegetation, lighting, constructions, it will stop making sense.

I'm not looking for an exact calculation... I'm looking for anything that delivers the 3 reasonable potential outcomes.

1. Detect them at first line of sight.
2. Detect them at the start of combat.
3. Surprised.

This is the whole point of my post. One check can have only 2 results.

Why is this an issue?

Normal detecting a hidden foe would result in situation 1, or 2/3.

Combat rules spell out checking for results 2, and 3. 

But if this is the same check, with the same roll, and the same dc...

Then there is only actually situation 1 or 3.

So why do combat rules outline situation 2???

They DON'T ! Everyone has already explained this to you multiple times, but you keep trying to invent something that does not exist and does not need to exist.

The combat rules explicitely have means for determining Surprise and discuss starting a combat encounter with a stealthed party failing to surprise their target when combat starts. Its spelled out in Step One of the combat rules as clear as day. You can say it doesn't exist as much as you want. Read em:

The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter.

If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren't.

Creatures can fail to stealth at the start of combat.

Right in the very start of combat rules this is supposed to be a possible outcome.

I've been seeking clarification on exactly that missing piece. I'm pretty sure there just isn't one so however I want to determine the starting distance is entirely up to me, so if I determine the starting distance with a second stealth roll then as far as I'm concerned that's RAW because it just says "The DM determines the starting distance" and is entirely silent on how, it seems.

Edit: I came back to expand on this. You're right. The rules at the START OF COMBAT says to check surprise. But stealth vs passive could and should already have happened before combat, as the PCs get close enough to detect the presence of enemies. If they fail here, then they are going to get ambushed. If they detect the threat here, combat hasn't even started yet. They could do all sorts of things, some might not cause a combat to even happen.

And I agree, which is why you will not find a formula that works for such a complex game.

But, assuming they fail that first stealth v perception, they will inevitably wander into the ambush. At THIS point we check for surprise or not surprise. That, is, again, the stealth v perception. The exact same thing we just did like 30 ft earlier, up the road a little ways.

And once more the rules do not tell you to roll anything, just to check whether the EXISTING stealth roll is still (or not, due to possibly changing circumstances) higher than the PP.

Its the exact same numbers. Situation 2 cannot exist if its the exact same numbers.

And here you go, SITUATION 2 DOES NOT EXIST !

Step One: Determining Surprise. Combat Rules of the PHB. It disagrees with you.

If nothing changes with these checks, then situation 2 is impossible. And, if situation 2 is impossible then why are we repeating the stealth v perception if the outcome is already set in stone? We already knew they didn't detect them 30ft up the road why are we checking the stealth again ow at the start of combat. Doesn't make sense. There needs to be some possible route to reach situation 2 as a possible outcome.

I see no such need. Why should there be ? The PCs have been progressing. At the point of the attack, either they know the foes are there or they don't. I see no rationale for giving anyone another chance exactly at this stage.

If the kobolds are hiding in a bush, they'd need to emerge from it, at least partially, to attack.

Why ?

To see, per your interpretation of obscurement rules.

Funny enough with my interpretation they could see out just fine. Because it is only vision into the area of obscurment that is blocked. Not all vision through it.

Otherwise they can't see, right? Because areas of obscurement blocks vision entirely. So they'd need to partially come out of hiding to spring their ambush.

See above, the fact that you read one sentence out of two has prevented you from understanding that one can see from out of a bush really fine if they are not in the middle of it, but they can't be seen because that would be seeing INTO a heavily obscured area. Everyone here understands this but you, so please make an effort.

Hey man, you've been arguing that heavily obscured areas BLOCK VISION ENTIRELY. Not me, you have.

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely.

You say this is a rules text and to enforce it mechanically, right? Well, if the area "blocks vision entirely" and your in it... your "vision" is "entirely blocked".

Again... I disagree with you here. I don't think that is mechanical rules text, I think it is descriptive rules text. The mechanical rules text is immediately following it:

A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

Whith MY interpretation, the correct one, you could see out of a bush just fine.

Its funny because you actually agree with me on the actually mechanics of how it work in practice but you simply disagree on my stance that the words in the books mean what those words mean.

"Combat, isn't combat. Combatants, aren't combatants. Vision blocked entirely, doesn't block vision."

Wild.

That is what the PCs are responding to and why we check stealth and roll initiative to determent who sees what and acts when. Do they step on a twig while sticking their head out of the brush to line up their shot? Who knows. But situation 2 is a possible outcome, somehow. I'm only here to figure out how.

My default for years has been a second stealth check at the start of combat to determine how stealthy the ambush attack, itself, is. As for why there needs to be a situation 2? 

THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT. YOU HAVE BEEN HOMEBREWING FOR YEARS. Clear enough for you ?

I've been homebrewing for decades. lol.

A few things. For one: Surprise rules are written with the context that it is an option, that there is an outcome where the stealthy attackers fail to surprise the party at the start of combat. If we assume that the check at 100ft up the road and the check at the start of combat are exactly the same numbers, then it is impossible for the stealthy attackers to fail to surprise the party at the start of combat, a situation clearly outlined as a possibility in the book.

OMG. Read my previous posts, I'm not going into this again.

Two: It makes sense that people could spot an ambush-in-motion and know something is wrong. Any ruleset that forgoes that possibility is inherently broken.

Yes, that is option 1, they spot it before it's fully sprung, no need for option 2.

So why then is it in the combat rules in step one of combat? You're determining something that can't exist? No way they wrote a rule and included it for a situation that can't exist.

Three: I'm not convinced you're actually supposed to use the same stealth check for both how well they were hidden and also for how stealthy their attacks are. This seems like 2 things to me. Two separate although related instances of stealth.

Please read the rules on stealth once more: "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested..."

There is only one stealth check the RAW tells you this, JC tells you this, EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM TELLS YOU THIS !!!

that check's total is contested...

by what? Curios question isn't it? by what? What is it contested by until you are discovered or stop hiding?

Why...

that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

Is, that... what happens at the start of combat?

or...

the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side

Oh, wait... huh. That's a passive check. Not an active search. Weird.

Know what else that rules except says, the first thing it says even:

The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding.

So I can decide whatever I want, and whatever that is, is raw. If I decide that the circumstances for hiding end when a party of kobolds tries to ambush, then that's RAW. They'd still need to compare a stealth roll at step one of combat because they're trying to be stealthy enough to surprise their enemy.

But their goal has changed from hiding to ambushing, so the situation, per me the DM, no longer allows them to remain hidden. They're clambering up a wall. Making noise.

This doesn't seem to be homebrew and I'm more convinced than ever that I've been doing it right this whole time.

This is a very very narrow reading of the rules. Do you really think that the rules tell you that two creatures can not hide from enemies if they are together and can see each other ?

If you think that it's the case, the rules are really, really stupid, but fortunately they don't say that.

If you hide, you hide from everyone. The only way not to is to do a group skill check to hide together. But you'd need to be together. But you can't automatically see someone who is hiding just because they're friendly to you. If your party rogue tries to hide, and rolls well, above your passive perception... you don't know where they are just like the enemy doesn't know where they are. 

Prove it to me from the rules. Prove to me that your friendly rogue who is sitting just besides you but behind a wall from the enemy cannot be hidden from the enemy because you can see him.

Entirely behind a wall? They're out of line of sight entirely. That's not hidden, that's gone.

And this is a very, very limited view again. How about "they are behind a wall, but stil making noise ? Or having a barbecue ? Are they still gone ? 

Because once more, this would be stupid, and my reading of them is that they don't say anything stupid like this.

That being said, I'm not saying either that you have to know where your friendly rogue is when he is in another room, hiding behind a pillar. The game does not give you omniscience either.

But it's again a demonstration that the game is trying to model something that has so many cases and options that the rules cannot cover every case, only a DM can do this and make the difference.

Hiding is what you do when someone could detect you and you act in a way so as to reduce the chance of them detecting you. If you cannot be detected, you're not necessarily hidden. You're simply outside of their range of perception. You could hide in advance, so that if someone's range of perception does enter the same area you occupy their chance of detecting you is reduced. Yes. But while you are outside of their range of perception is isn't the hiding that keeps them from detecting you, it is the outside their range of perception thing.

In a sense, I agree with you, but in the end, the result is the same. YOU ARE HIDDEN FROM THEM.

But only while entirely and completely behind the wall. Pop up to try to shoot, and you're not entirely behind a wall, and for sure could have made a lot of noise.

If you hide, you are attempting to avoid detection. Your roll represents how well you do.

It works against allies. How well or kindly someone regards you has no interaction with how well your character can hide himself.

Now, that's not to say you can hide in plain sight. Obviously you can't. So if you are in plain sight of an ally then they detect, just the same as if you are in plain sight of an enemy. There is no distinction made in stealth for if you respect one another or want to kill one another. 

Please, please, please stop trying to be so verbose, you are dithering so much that you are not even addressing the issue. Do you agree that a friendly rogue can be in plain sight from you (and therefore not hidden from you) and still be completely hidden from an adversary ?

Could they? Yes. But not 'because they want to' but because an obstacle could block vision to the enemy while not blocking sight to the ally. The exact opposite could happen, they might try to hide from an enemy, who then moves and has clear sight on them, so not hidden, but still is hidden from the cleric who wanted to heal them.

They don't really get to decide who they're hiding from. Just if they're doing it or not. There is some degree of control because of smart positioning. But a hidden rogue is hidden from their cleric buddy, generally speaking.

 

If a bush blocks vision so does darkness. "such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage"

Make sense of the fact these three things behave identically?

They behave identically in general, but they don't have the same SHAPE. And, believe it or not, they don't. 

A bush, a puff of fog, and an area of darkness could all have the same shape. IDK what you mean or even why you think their shape has anything to do with this.

It blocks vision into it. The sentence immediately after your red highlight tells you exactly what it means on a mechanical rules level.

The two sentences are separate. The first one talks about the fact that some phenomenons block vision. A bush blocks vision, it fills some space. Fog, also filling some space, blocks vision.

Now, do you consider that air blocks it space ? No. Light, coming from afar, can still go through the air and reach your eyes, therefore that air is not in darkness, since it's illuminated.

This is the major difference with a spell like darkness, which fills a volume with darkness. Since it's filled, it blocks your vision. 

Interesting homebrew rule. The actual rule clearly says they all three behave identically. So if a bush blocks vision through it, so does darkness. 

Of course, because normal darkness is always in the shape of a bush.

Shape? How is this relevant?

I, too, homebrew the obscurement rules into make sense.

This is not homebrew. I dare you, I double dare you to find anything in my interpretation that is not in line with the RAW.

Your interpretation only relies on the fact that darkness, like fog or bushes, blocks vision, but despite what you think it does not make these things identical in all the other ways that matter. So if you are only relying on one fact, you cannot deduce that things are identical.

I'll stop you right there. That's your interpretation. You're telling me your interpretation is my interpretation. It isn't. I don't think darkness, or any heavy obscurement blocks vision, like you do. I do homebrew semi-tangible obscurment so that it does block vision the same way cover does, because my interpretation is that they don't block vision through them, only that creatures are treated as blind while trying to see something in them.

I'll give you a very simple example: a pane of glass is a solid. A pane of steel is a solid. Does this say anything about the fact that solids allow light to pass through ?

No, and it's exactly the same thing with normal darkness and a bush. Light, when directed at a bush, will not penetrate, But it will penetrate darkness (again normal one), because that's what light does to darkness. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RULES ABOUT VISION, it's simply how the world is, and hopefully you do not need me to explain to you that light illuminates darkness (again, normal one, not a magical effect that spreads and absorbs light).

You're just ignoring the rules and describing reality lol. Yeah, we all know how reality works. That was my whole point, the rules, here, aren't great and you gotta ignore parts of what they say and instead just use common sense. That's homebrewing.

What's super weird about this whole chat is you switch back and forth insisting heavy obscurement blocks vision but then say that of course the heavy obscurement of darkness doesn't block vision and why would you think I say so just because I say all heavy obscurement blocks all vision lolol. Like, dude? You're arguing with yourself. Either heavy obscurement does, or does not, block vision. Pick one.

I didn't write these rules man. But bushes and fog do the same thing as natural darkness, per the rules. Make sense? Nope.

the thing is that you are confusing vision and light. They do the same for vision, but the main difference is that light is blocked from entering a bush or fog or magical darkness (because it specifically spreads in a volume), whereas there is absolutely zero problem for it being seen in the air in an area which is illuminated by light, by its very definition.

That being said, I agree that, in this specific area, the rules could have been better written. Still, again, no one at our tables has ever had the smallest problem with this in our games.

Yeah no one has a problem with it because just about every last human being on Earth intuitively knows how it should work. So if you run a game you either consciously or reflexively homebrew this section into making sense. 

Honestly, read the rules, all of them, and you will realise this is not homebrew.

I have which is why I homebrew it into making sense.

My homebrew fix is straightforward, I say obscured areas do the second sentence only, the first is narrative. Then have cover essentially create direction dependent areas of obscurement. You can better conceptualize this as 'blocking line of sight'. And then that some causes of obscurement can additionally block line of sight, like anything physical normally can. These semi-cover-like heavy obscurements would be cover if they were stronger, but since they're not, they behave like cover only in their ability to block line of sight. ie not only is a bush an area of obscurement but also create additional instances of obscured areas behind them from every creatures individual vantage point.

But, I know I'm consciously homebrewing this and that per RAW the rules model a world that has very different physics than what we know and expect from our own world. 

Actually it does not. The RAW model perfectly describes our normal world, but as 5e rules are intended to rely on common sense, they indeed do not take the time to tell you something that everyone knows in our world, that light penetrates normal darkness, dispelling it, and it does not do the same with bushes and fog.

But if we don't need the rules telling us how it all works then why does darkness spell block vision through it when we all know darkness doesn't work that way?

You're still arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either the rules tell us how it works or they don't. Where they don't we have to just make it up on the fly. Where they get it wrong, we have to fix. Saying that darkness blocks vision is wrong. So we fix it. I fix darkness spell too, because nothing in the spell text says it destroys the light photons that are passing through it. So what if it spreads? Darkness isn't matter no matter what words you use to describe it. It doesn't say it blocks vision through it, it doesn't say it destroys light passing through it either. Yall making that iish up.

Yeah, but it creates this exact issue. I've been doing things a certain way for years and then get told I'm doing it wrong. But, if this whole section of the rules needs to be ad hoc'd then is there even really a wrong way of doing it? I know it isn't a boardgame but it isn't even trying to get things to make sense and seems to just accept that its own rules here suck and we'll all just figure out out on our own.

The problem ONLY COMES FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO BE MORE CLEVER THAN THE RULES and not applying common sense on top of them. Some people believe that the rules should explain every last detail about how the world works, probably so that they can nitpick even more.

Big difference between 'every last detail' and 'basics of vision and illumination" rofl. Besides, I'm advocating for using common sense and ignoring the rules that says darkness is solid. Commen sense in action.

This is not the spirit of the rules, it's written all over the place but some people don't want to read sentences that go against their confirmation bias.

Common sense says darkness can be seen through but you over here advocating that it blocks vision anyway?

To make the vison stuff work in a believable way you must:

• Treat areas behind Cover like direction-dependent obscured areas

No you don't. There is no link between cover and vision except for the (and I agree that this is a word that would have been benefited from a different writing, even JC says so) bad use of the "concealed" word in the cover section.

Apart from that, there is absolutely zero need for such a silly ruling. The only thing that the rules need to say, and they do, is that "you cannot hide from someone that can see you clearly". But just as there can be lots of reasons for someone being blind, there can be even more reasons for not seeing someone, and they don't have to relate to obscurement.

Eh, I tend to think that actually makes perfect sense. Cover does cause concealment.

NO IT DOES NOT. A pane of glass gives you cover and no concealement. So does a wall of force. Transparent cover exists, you know... Sheesh...

lol I talk about transparent cover too my dude, you're having a meldown about me not talking about something I'm talking about like in the next paragraph.

You are making way too many shortcuts in your readings of the rules, honestly.

Unlikely, I've read them cover to cover more than once. And I reference experpts almost every day. Just on sheer hours alone I'm an expert. "Shortcuts" isn't what someone who writes an essay, like this one, addressing multiple different minor rule reading inconsistencies roflmao. Like, who thinks someone who writes a response like THIS is taking a shortcut in the rules??

Without cover or obscurement then you're 'seen clearly'. Cover, or obscurement, should at least mention this explicitly.

NO, because it's wrong, see above/

I cannot, for above passes through an area of darkness, and my vision, hath been blockethed...

Without mentioning how it works in even the vaguest terms, you're left to simply make it up. No two DMs will necessarily handle this the same way, since it is entirely being invented whole cloth by them out of practical necessity.

Cover provides something to hide behind. Without it, you're 'seen clearly'. Total cover would entirely prevent detection from sight, making the need to even hide irrelevant. You're impossible to detect with vision while behind full, total, cover.

... most of the time.

Obviously, some cover could allow vision. But that'd be a special property of the material, being translucent or invisible. But by default, if i provides cover it blocks vision, and if it blocks enough vision you can hide behind it.

And this is why the rules are written exactly the way they are. There is no automatic link between cover and concealement, simply  because the world does not work that way.

You just read my rational for why cover should provide concealment and agreed that cover shouldn't provide concealment. That's some Bugs Bunny trickery right there. Well. I agree with you, that cover does provide concealment, here here!

But that's all homebrew ruling. The rules don't talk about cover blocking line of sight or causing obscurment or anything of the sort. Except that one line saying you're concealed if behind total cover. It's a critical inclusion. "Concealed" is a problematic word, but it at least reinforces the RAI that cover causes obscurement.

And this is where you are wrong. It's exactly the opposite. Read all the rules, and it's the only way that makes sense, and by the way JC clarifies that you are absolutely wrong in terms of RAI in his podcast on stealth.

So you think people can see through walls now? Of course it provides areas of obscurment. It HAS to. (unless invisible obviously)

When you have cover, it creates the effect: "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area." in the area behind it, from all creatures respective individual vantage point.

That's how vision works. Cover creates instances of concealed areas.

If you're saying it doesn't you saying that you can, RAW, see through walls and other cover.

Obscurement is the ONLY bit that talks about being unable to see something. Cover doesn't say things block sight. There are no rules that say anything else blocks sight. ONLY obscurement does. Therefore, you MUST homebrew that cover causes obscurment or some other ad hoc ruling to make it mechanically function. Creatures need to:

A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

It needs to happen. Its fundamentally true that you are effectively blind when trying to see the area behind a granite wall from your perspective. If you don't homebrew this... I don't even know what you're doing but its some weird gameplay I'll tell you that much. Being able to see everything in every direction unless and only unless it is bloked by fog, bushes, or darkness? That's a mindbender. So far from reality its hard to even picture.

• Treat obscured areas like cover, but only sometimes and only in some ways

And again, there is absolutely zero reason for this.

Some of them block vision through them like cover does. 100% is needed.

You are mixing too many things in the wrong way. Honestly, at this stage, the only thing I can offer is a discord session to take you through things step by step, this is taking too lonh and you have way too many misconceptions about the game system.

Walls should block vision and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

I mean, another example how weird these rues are is per the default rules you would have to take an actual Action to roll Stealth and hide, even if you were invisible in an area of darkness and against a character in an area of silence. It's impossible for them to detect you in any way. But, per the rules, you still need to take an action to hide... and you can fail. It's silly really. This whole part of the rules is lacking or nonsensical.

No, because again you are not reading all the rules. That is the problem honestly with 95% of the people on these forums. I'm not saying that it's the case for you, but a lot of people here come to brag that they are extremely clever because they spotted a flaw in the design of the game, when in fact all they show is that they are not even able to read the rulebook from beginning to end without forgetting half the rules along the way.

The rules say that you also need to take into action advantages and disadvantages, and circumstances. And they tell you that: "Remember that dice don’t run your game — you do. Dice are like rules. They’re tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character’s plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."

So if the DM wants someone to be automatically hidden because the circumstances say so, HE CAN. And yes, without a stealth check. These are the rules, straight from the books, although admittedly from a section that people don't want to read because it throws a large spanner in their little rules-lawyering constructions.

I do this all the time in practice. If you're behind a wall and motionless, you're not only hidden but undetectable. You automatically succeed on a stealth check whether you meant to even do a stealth check or not. But, only for default vision obviously. If a creature can still detect you with like scent or whatever that's different. But in practice, some things are just automatic and rolls are pointless.

But... when discussing the actual rules, and parsing them, they do lead to some wonky, but RAW, results. The above is just one such bizarre result. I don't know a DM who would actually enforce RAW there, but... if you are discussing the RAW, then, you can't just pretend that the results of the RAW aren't what they are. You can accept both that the rules produce silly results sometimes and also accept that if they would it's also your job to fix it narratively anyway. You can hold both of these opinions. It's possible, I promise.

And I have been DMing for 42+ years and never had a problem, not even with 5e. Although needing a DM's interpretation to cover specific situations in a number of case, I can run most of my games perfectly RAW without having inconsistencies, but then I read ALL the rules.

And in particular the RAW tells me that I can consider creatures as hidden because they have automatically succeeded at a stealth check just for being fairly quiet and around the corner, without taking any specific action for it. It's pure RAW, as demonstrated above, but you will still find people to request to see a stealth check being rolled. They are simply wrong.

The biggest difference, far as I can tell, is that I know I'm homebrewing the inconsistencies out when I reach the same conclusions as you on how something should probably be adjudicated. We agree far more here than we disagree, especially on how it should all work in practice. But I know its homebrew when I change it from what the book says and you somehow think its what the books says even while disagreeing with yourself in your very next sentence.

But if you read them with a neutral eye and make the basic assumption that they are logical, and agree that they don't have to be complete because no true TTRPG game rules could be complete, you are fine.

? Like I said, you need to fill in the blanks, and ignore stuff too. That's what a DM needs to do, out of practicallity, to run a game. We're agreeing that the game is missing stuff, you're just, idk, mad we're agreeing about it? or, you're allowed to say it isn't complete, but it's wrong when I do? I'm not going to kneel before and worship the ancient scrolls or whatever reverence you think I should have for them when there are clearly some broken and poorly written parts. Use what's good, and discard what isn't. It's not a holy relic. This isn't heresy. They errata this stuff for a reason, they don't get everything right the first time. I don't really expect them to, but, just because they can and do make mistakes and we can be understanding of those mistakes doesn't mean to just pretend they're not there like a pauper serving the king with invisible robes.

No one is coming to get you if you acknowledge something in the D&D rules is poorly written.

..........

TLDR:

• I'm still not sure the best way to reach all three possible outcomes, 1.spot at distance, 2.spot at ambush, 3.surprised at ambush... unless either using advantage/disadvantage (not ideal) or using two stealth checks (contested as homebrew, but is it?).
• Combat starts the moment a player (or DM) declares that a character/npc is going to attack. That's just fact.
• Winning initiative and no longer being surised after your turn means you know there is a creature trying to do bad-mojo at you (we're not allowed to use the word: attack).
• Per RAW, Darkness, Foliage, and Fog all block vision identically. Either "entirely", or at the very least "Into their area". (you should hombrew this into making sense)
• Cover doesn't (but should) provide obscured areas behind them from each character's perspective. Objects in general should, only invisible (see through) objects shouldn't.
• Darkness spell shouldn't be treated like a solid since darkness has no substance, nor does it say it blocks vision through its area.
• I've read the rules extensively and will happily argue them ad nauseam, but do not accept appeals to authority, or to the people, as rationally sound.
• Rules have inconsistencies that many DMs reflexively fix on the fly. Even if most people fix it, and easily, we're allowed to acknowledge the words could still do with a touchup.

Quote from Geann >>

Ok.  So.  You have your ambush set up.  The Kobolds are hidden, you have checked to see if the party spotted them.  You have decided they are going to attack.  You say "roll for initiative".

Combat officially begins.  Step 1.  Check for surprise.  Ok...  Already did that.  I think someone may be confused just because they are not realizing that the list is a generic list for *all* combats, and as such, even if you know Surprise is checked, you are gently reminded that it should be checked.  You don't roll anything again.  You just internally check that off and move on to the next step.

Had you not set the ambush up in advance, this might be relevant.  Since it is not in this case, you can go about your business.  Move along.

So your answer is to ignore the rules on surprise. Or, accept that surprise always give the same result as would have happened before combat anyway which makes the situation of having un-surprised targets impossible at the start of combat when one side is being sneaky and thus eliminating the whole purpose for having surprise rules be step 1 in combat?

If that was the case that whole section would just read: "If you start combat and your enemy hasn't detected you yet they are surprised until the end of their first turn" Done /end step.

But that isn't what it says, it goes into detail talking about the steps you take to determine if someone is or is not surprised at the start of combat. Any interpretation of the rules that leads to it being impossible for one side to be un-surprised while the enemy tries a sneak attack on them is false.

I might not know what the right answer is but the one that says ignore step... one, of the combat sequence, is certainly wrong.

Quote from Lyxen>>

And then: "Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

But when you combine that with: "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested..." it proves that the previous check, even if it was hours ago, is simply compared to a passive perception, so there is no reason for it to change at that exact point in time. Sorry, but there is no "step 2".

Those "..." are doing a LOT of heavy lifting in the formation of your incorrect statement here.

The rest of that sentence is

... by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

I can see why you removed it, it goes directly against what you're saying.

Because it says that first check is against anyone actively searching for you. But then later, when combat starts, we're prompted to do an entirely different check, stealth vs passive perception if they're trying to surprise their target.

That's a new check, and to do something different. You're hidden because of the first check, and you surprise or don't surprise because of the second check. Two different objectives, two different checks.

please accept that the rules go against what you thought, everyone is telling you this.

 Argumentum ad populum. I've already said I don't accept it as a valid argument. Why is it a bad argument? Well, I have no metric to gauge what % of the population holds a correct understanding of something. For some topics, that % might be very high, for others, that % might be very low. If I were to accept that "everyone says so" was a valid argument, I'd automatically be accepting bad information for any instance where a large portion of the responding population happens to hold a bad understanding of something. That seems a disastrously poor choice. I'll abstain.

Encounter Distance

Terrain

• Arctic, desert, farmland or grassland: 6d6 x 10 feet
• Forest, swamp, or woodland: 2d8 x 10 feet
• Hills or wastelands: 2d10 x 10 feet
• Jungle: 2d6 x 10 feet
• Mountains: 4d10 x 10 feet

Audible Distance

• Trying to be quiet: 2d6 x 5 feet
• Normal noise level: 2d6 x 10 feet
• Very loud: 2d6 x 50 feet

Visibility Outdoors

• Clear day, no obstructions: 2 miles
• Rain: 1 mile
• Fog 100 to 300 feet
• From a height: x 20

For what it is worth.  I doubt this will help settle any of the arguments, but at least I'll be able to find the information online for my own use.

Quote from Lyxen>>

But anyway, Icho (the old peddler who is actually a member of the koroshi - the assassin's guild) certainly intended to attack, and Usagi (the ronin) reacted to that.

In 5e terms, there certainly was combat and initiative (and Icho clearly lost), but no attack action and no attack roll. Clear ?

And did Icho attack Usagi  ? I don't think so...

What's funny about the comic example is that drawing his weapon is his free interact as part of his attack action. lol.

So, he started to try to attack, narrative-wise. This triggers the mechanics of combat. The rabbit-boi wins, and can act first. But, doesn't wanna attack his roommate, the only other person present, since his passive insight isn't high enough to determine the assassin-roommate's intention to murder him. Realizing his target is faster than him, the assassin abandons his attack.

The Stealth check you make when you hide is compared to other's Passive Perception score until detected or stop hiding. Such contest happen once during an encounter, result is either success (undetected) or failure (detected). The only time another contest would occur in this context is if a creature would take an action on it's turn to Search for hidden creature specifically.