I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
Edit: Wizards gain access to Invisibility starting at level 3, not level 2. Thanks for catching that, ArntItheBest!
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
A Wizard can't cast Invisibility until level 3. But the bigger problem with your second paragraph is the DM's stating that they can easily be seen is in violation of the RAW, so it is homebrew/table rule. And the 7 levels is not to "reliably pull off a skill check", it is to do this 100% of the time without fail. And it is basically the equivalent of a 4th level spell, for free, all day long.
There is nothing in the Hide rules that say you cannot walk down the hallway in plain sight, because you're not in plain sight, you're Invisible. Just like you would be if the Wizard cast Invisibility. All these people saying that the spell is different than Hiding are a) not reading the rules or b) injecting what they believe RAI to be. Both make you Invisible the only difference is the spell doesn't let you cast non-verbal spells and that someone can make a Perception check to find a Hiding creature.
Just humor me real quick, what balance reasons are you considering?
Bonus action hide can be a balance problem due to action economy issues (attack first, then hide as a bonus action to have the defensive benefits until the next turn; that totally shuts down creature that use attacks that require vision unless they have an ability to penetrate stealth by a means other than the search action).
There are some easy ways to fix this:
1.) Add monsters that have Piercing resistance or even immunity if you're that kind of DM. You can grant a high HP pool and Bludgeoning (or some other) weakness to give other classes time to shine if the Rogue has been the star of the session up until now. 2.) Create a map where there isn't much cover available. 3.) Have enemies use AoE abilities, grenades, etc. in the last-known location of the Rogue. If they're just stay put behind cover and never move, then the enemies can safely assume the Rogue is still there. 4.) Midway through the fight, have monsters come in through whichever entrance the players used (or from behind where the Rogue is squatting), effectively flanking the Rogue.
I really don't feel like it's that big of an issue. Rogues are the only class that can reliably use Stealth and they only get one attack per round, and deal basically all Piercing damage. I feel like they're actually one of the better classes in terms of balance at the moment.
Action Economy is one thing, but if you have all these bonus actions but can only attack one enemy per turn, I really don't feel like the game breaks down at this point.
Action Economy has always been (and probably always will be) a challenge for DMs to solve when building encounters. This is basically just that in a nutshell.
There is nothing in the Hide rules that say you cannot walk down the hallway in plain sight, because you're not in plain sight, you're Invisible.
To be fair, there's nothing in the invisible condition that says you can't be seen. Just consequences if you can't be seen. However, this is pretty clearly not RAI.
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
A Wizard can't cast Invisibility until level 3. But the bigger problem with your second paragraph is the DM's stating that they can easily be seen is in violation of the RAW, so it is homebrew/table rule. And the 7 levels is not to "reliably pull off a skill check", it is to do this 100% of the time without fail. And it is basically the equivalent of a 4th level spell, for free, all day long.
There is nothing in the Hide rules that say you cannot walk down the hallway in plain sight, because you're not in plain sight, you're Invisible. Just like you would be if the Wizard cast Invisibility. All these people saying that the spell is different than Hiding are a) not reading the rules or b) injecting what they believe RAI to be. Both make you Invisible the only difference is the spell doesn't let you cast non-verbal spells and that someone can make a Perception check to find a Hiding creature.
That's correct, Wizards don't get level 2 spell slots until level 3. Thanks for catching that.
A DM stating that the character can be seen is not in violation of RAW. The flow of gameplay has the character explain what they do and then the DM describing what happens due to their choices. Per RAW players don't get to just roll to do whatever they want whenever they like and decide what happens, otherwise players could just say, "I want to roll Survival 100 times and on success I find 10 Platinum coins." Stealth even says that it's up to the DM to decide when hiding is appropriate.
To quote the PHB:
The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. Sometimes resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer walks across a room and tries to open a door, the DM might say the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM might ask the player to roll a die to help determine what happens. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1.
This means level 7 Rogue asks, "Can I sneak past those guards while in plan sight?" The DM may ask for a skill check. They might also just flat-out say no. If the Rogue didn't specify how they were approaching the situation, the DM could even say that the Rogue has to roll Deception at disadvantage instead of Stealth to try to pretend like they're a guard passing through. If a Player asks, "Can I roll for X?" You're not actually playing RAW since it's up to the DM to decide when it's appropriate to ask for skill checks. Most D&D/Pathfinder-only players I've played with have the awful habit of asking if they can roll to do something, not ask if they can do something and communicating with the GM how they imagine it working out. Not only is it RAW, it makes for better gameplay.
To quote the DMG again:
"Rules Aren't Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don't let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn't define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round."
"Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone is reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
In short, this is RAW: Rogue: I want to sneak past the guards down this hall. DM: Okay, describe what your plan is. Rogue: I just walk right past them, can I roll Stealth and Hide? DM: Where are you hiding in a well-lit, corridor with no cover? Rogue: Good point, I need to rethink my approach...
What everyone else seems to think is RAW: Rogue: I roll Stealth to sneak past these guards. Yes! I rolled a 34!! DM: You've gained permanent invisibility and can do anything you want from here on out. Well done, you've beat Dungeons and Dragons. You're the DM now.
Also, please note, I'm not advocating that merely breaking cover instantly removes the Invisible Condition on a Rogue. Rogues should be able to count on using their Stealth probably 90%+ of the time. What I am advocating is that there be some sort of limitations to it compensates for the limitations that the Invisibility spell has (e.g., Duration, spell slots) which the skill does not.
Yes, there absolutely should be limitations. The problem is that there are not per RAW.
The problem is that RAW makes no distinction between magical invisibility and hiding in the benefits it gets you. You hide, you get the Invisible condition, and only attacking, casting a verbal spell, making a sound louder than a whisper, or an enemy finds you (spelled out as a Wisdom (Perception) check).
The thing that 5e Invisibility did was let you take the Hide action while out in the open. This let you sneak across the wide open room with Stealth checks. 5.5e Hide makes you Invisible and negates the need for Stealth checks altogether by doing it just once (or spamming it however many times you need to get a Nat20). If we assume that they actually meant Invisible to mean invisible, then Hiding is ridiculously broken. If we read Invisible as written, then you can never become invisible, you just can't be seen unless you can be seen, making Invisibility and Greater Invisibility absolutely useless.
Unfortunately, there is no middle ground per RAW.
There is. It is the 'Condition persists unless someone finds you', clause of the Hide action. That is RAW. Saying that the only way they can do that is to beat your DC is not, actually, RAW.
What the RAW say is that that is one way you can be found. It does not demand exclusivity (the wording can be interpreted so that a pedantic player can demand that it is the DC for any Intelligence (Perception) roll to find you, but then the DM can say 'they don't need a roll to see you sitting on the throne. Sure, if they were roiling, that would be the DC, but since the situation you put yourself in doesn't require them to roll, you're found').
As I said earlier, the majority of this type of RAW argument (strictly written RAW allows something silly to happen) only work because the 'lawyer' in question has slipped something in that the RAW do not support (in the case of the Peasant Railgun that accelerating the spear must increase the damage, in this case that the DC to find the character always applies and that there is no other way to 'find' someone who has succeeded on the Hide action with a good roll),
Hell, I just realized that using the interpretation that beating that DC is the only way to perceive the character means Truesight is useless against a character who used Stealth.
"Sorry, the only way to find me is to make a DC 32 Intelligence (Perception) roll. Truesight let's you see me even though I have the Invisible Condition, but RAW, you still need to beat 32 for find me. Truesight lets you see Invisible creatures, but it doesn't say you automatically find them. Once you find me, then you can see me."
That, of course, is ludicrous. However, it does illustrate that there clearly are ways other than beating the DC to find the character. This mitigates a lot of the RAW argument because now the rules lawyer have to either accept that the statement was not meant to be exclusive, or they have to accept that it was meant to be exclusive, but it is clearly in error since there are exceptions, and so can't be used strictly 'As Written'.
Yes, the logical argument is 'my interpretation is that the statement was meant to be exclusive, baring explicit exceptions. The fact that there are explicit exceptions is implied', but now you have left 'RAW' and I can just as easily counter 'my interpretation is that the statement was not meant to be exclusive, and while there are explicit exceptions they are not the only exceptions'.
This takes us into RAI which is an entirely separate container of annelids.
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
Edit: Wizards gain access to Invisibility starting at level 3, not level 2. Thanks for catching that, ArntItheBest!
I'll split the difference with you. Abuse in this context means knowingly taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation.
My position is not that the other players are knowingly taking advantage of an exploitable situation. They feel that the developers intended for the rules to work that way, and I can respect that. I disagree with how they feel, but I'm not going to demand they stop feeling that way.
Since they feel that way, the don't perceive what they are doing as a 'loophole', thus they cannot be 'knowingly' exploiting it, regardless of anyone else's interpretation.
(of course, if they do think they found a loophole and this isn't what the developers intended then yes, they are 'abusing' the system)
As far as Balance goes, yes, if the DM can say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight" then there is a Balance. Invisibility is even stronger than mere Stealth, but it has much more limited usage.
Having unlimited use of an ability that can fully replicate a limited use ability is not, as a general rule, good balance. (I won't make an absolute statement because exceptions can always exist).
Depending on the spell they cast a Wizard can easily out damage a Fighter, move faster than a Monk, or out sneak a Rogue. However, they can only do so perhaps a dozen times in a day while the Fighter can just keep swinging his sword, the Monk can just keep jogging along, and the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding as often as they like.
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
Edit: Wizards gain access to Invisibility starting at level 3, not level 2. Thanks for catching that, ArntItheBest!
I'll split the difference with you. Abuse in this context means knowingly taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation.
My position is not that the other players are knowingly taking advantage of an exploitable situation. They feel that the developers intended for the rules to work that way, and I can respect that. I disagree with how they feel, but I'm not going to demand they stop feeling that way.
Since they feel that way, the don't perceive what they are doing as a 'loophole', thus they cannot be 'knowingly' exploiting it, regardless of anyone else's interpretation.
(of course, if they do think they found a loophole and this isn't what the developers intended then yes, they are 'abusing' the system)
As far as Balance goes, yes, if the DM can say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight" then there is a Balance. Invisibility is even stronger than mere Stealth, but it has much more limited usage.
Having unlimited use of an ability that can fully replicate a limited use ability is not, as a general rule, good balance. (I won't make an absolute statement because exceptions can always exist).
Depending on the spell they cast a Wizard can easily out damage a Fighter, move faster than a Monk, or out sneak a Rogue. However, they can only do so perhaps a dozen times in a day while the Fighter can just keep swinging his sword, the Monk can just keep jogging along, and the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding as often as they like.
Okay, that makes sense given my post as written vs post as intended (lol)
One thing I want to ask about is the last part of your post that I've made bold. If the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding whenever they like (I'd rule this as at DM's discretion, but I don't want to split hairs), how is that actually unbalanced? That seems to me like the class just doing what it does, given that Rogues have plenty of other limitations. I don't feel like the game breaks down in any way due to this, and especially not in any way that the DM wouldn't obviously prevent. Got any specific examples?
I'm not referring to abuse. I'm referring to balance.
Walking down a hallway past two guards when there is no way for them to miss the Rogue, and being able to do it over and over and over again limitlessly while the Wizard can only do it for a short amount of time is a balance issue.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
Edit: Wizards gain access to Invisibility starting at level 3, not level 2. Thanks for catching that, ArntItheBest!
I'll split the difference with you. Abuse in this context means knowingly taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation.
My position is not that the other players are knowingly taking advantage of an exploitable situation. They feel that the developers intended for the rules to work that way, and I can respect that. I disagree with how they feel, but I'm not going to demand they stop feeling that way.
Since they feel that way, the don't perceive what they are doing as a 'loophole', thus they cannot be 'knowingly' exploiting it, regardless of anyone else's interpretation.
(of course, if they do think they found a loophole and this isn't what the developers intended then yes, they are 'abusing' the system)
As far as Balance goes, yes, if the DM can say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight" then there is a Balance. Invisibility is even stronger than mere Stealth, but it has much more limited usage.
Having unlimited use of an ability that can fully replicate a limited use ability is not, as a general rule, good balance. (I won't make an absolute statement because exceptions can always exist).
Depending on the spell they cast a Wizard can easily out damage a Fighter, move faster than a Monk, or out sneak a Rogue. However, they can only do so perhaps a dozen times in a day while the Fighter can just keep swinging his sword, the Monk can just keep jogging along, and the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding as often as they like.
Okay, that makes sense given my post as written vs post as intended (lol)
One thing I want to ask about is the last part of your post that I've made bold. If the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding whenever they like (I'd rule this as at DM's discretion, but I don't want to split hairs), how is that actually unbalanced? That seems to me like the class just doing what it does, given that Rogues have plenty of other limitations. I don't feel like the game breaks down in any way due to this, and especially not in any way that the DM would obviously prevent. Got any specific examples?
It isn't unbalanced, as long as it is not as strong as something with much more limited use (e.g., the Invisibility spell).
So one example of this is the position that the Rogue cannot simply walk down the hall past the guards. Stealth might cover 95% of the cases that Invisibility covers, but those remaining 5% remain a weakness which helps to balance the 'unlimited use' against the 'finite spell slots'.
To allow Stealth to actually confer full Invisibility and allow the character to walk between the two guards in our hypothetic corridor means that Stealth covers 100% of the cases that Invisibility covers and it no longer has that weakness, and now the question of Balance rears its head.
Now, Balance is an argument to sway opinion. It should not be taken as 'it can't let you walk past those guards because that's the only thing balancing everything out'. There are requirements for when you can roll Stealth that are much more stringent that casting Invisibility. Even if those conditions are met, the character could get a bad roll. Etcetera. All of those also weaken Stealth slightly in relation to the Invisibility spell.
I just do not think those drawbacks are significant enough to fully 'balance the books', but that's simply my opinion. YMMV.
It isn't unbalanced, as long as it is not as strong as something with much more limited use (e.g., the Invisibility spell).
So one example of this is the position that the Rogue cannot simply walk down the hall past the guards. Stealth might cover 95% if the cases that Invisibility covers, but those remaining 5% remain a weakness.
Now, Balance is an argument to sway opinion. It should not be taken as 'it can't let you walk past those guards because that's the only thing balancing everything out'. There are requirements for when you can roll Stealth that are much more stringent that casting Invisibility. Even if those conditions are met, the character could get a bad roll. Etcetera. All of those also weaken Stealth slightly in relation to the Invisibility spell.
I just do not think those drawbacks are significant enough to fully 'balance the books', but that's simply my opinion. YMMV.
I guess the way I'm looking at it is that it only seems unbalanced in a situation where Stealth actually does give a game-changing advantage in the session/campaign that's being played. In a heist campaign, sure why not play all Rogues? That would be loads of fun. But that's also sort of the point. In an adventure campaign where you have to brave the wilderness and deal with many Survival checks, Stealth is useless.
Without context, it doesn't make sense to call it a balance issue. If there was only one encounter in the adventure that might require Stealth, awesome. The Rogue aces it. Then the Wizard casts Invisibility on themselves. What are the Fighter and Barbarian doing in the encounter? The Rogue is just doing what they do.
Another example: The party is crossing a rickety bridge that collapses. Everyone falls into a river and is swept away and needs to roll an Athletics check. Invisibility (the spell) and Hiding (the action) are perfectly balanced here. They both do effectively nothing.
Another thing to take into consideration is that the Rogue can also only Hide themselves. The Wizard can cast Invisibility on anyone. I still feel like the Wizard has the upper hand here.
The "stealth past the guards" scenario is also bogus to begin with. Say you let the rogue pass them unnoticed. Then what? Go on a solo adventure while the rest of the team twiddles their thumbs? Fight the guards? Ok, well all the stealth effectively did is give surprise and a sneak attack to start combat. Are you truly bothered by one advantage roll that much?
Again, these are almost exclusively narrative complaints, not mechanical ones. Spellcasters have infinite cantrip uses, and multiple cantrips to boot. Rogues get one qualified Invisibility cantrip. That's the least unbalanced element in the entire game.
The "stealth past the guards" scenario is also bogus to begin with. Say you let the rogue pass them unnoticed. Then what? Go on a solo adventure while the rest of the team twiddles their thumbs? Fight the guards? Ok, well all the stealth effectively did is give surprise and a sneak attack to start combat. Are you truly bothered by one advantage roll that much?
Again, these are almost exclusively narrative complaints, not mechanical ones. Spellcasters have infinite cantrip uses, and multiple cantrips to boot. Rogues get one qualified Invisibility cantrip. That's the least unbalanced element in the entire game.
I don't know. Maybe the Rogue steals the magic macguffin, which is why the hall is guarded like that. After all, even if there are people all around the macguffin they can't see the Rogue. All he needs to do is grab it, Dash (since grabbing isn't an Attack and Dash doesn't break Stealth), then use his Bonus Action to Dash again. Now the guards have no clue where his is and are completely unable to find him.
And sure, cantrips don't have a limit to how much they can be cast. Do you know something else? They are all less effective than what the non-casters can do all day long (though I will admit that they often stack nicely onto the things non-casters do all day long).
Cantrips like True Strike and Booming Blade only become really damaging when combined with things a pure Wizard is not good at. They might be great for an Eldritch Knight, but a wizard using Booming Blade with their simple melee weapon is not going to be out damaging a Barbarian of the same level.
All he needs to do is grab it, Dash (since grabbing isn't an Attack and Dash doesn't break Stealth), then use his Bonus Action to Dash again.
Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition.
So it's not automatic. And I'd give "guards" who are "on duty" advantage on Perception to catch interlopers...
(And, as has been noted many times, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." So, like, doing this in a confined-but-open space in full view of guards may just not work. Gotta distract 'em! But we're dealing with an absurd extreme in this conversation, so carry on.)
All he needs to do is grab it, Dash (since grabbing isn't an Attack and Dash doesn't break Stealth), then use his Bonus Action to Dash again.
Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition.
So it's not automatic. And I'd give "guards" who are "on duty" advantage on Perception to catch interlopers...
(And, as has been noted many times, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." So, like, doing this in a confined-but-open space in full view of guards may just not work. Gotta distract 'em! But we're dealing with an absurd extreme in this conversation, so carry on.)
My apologies I should have made it clear that, in that example, the guards are basically standing there around the macguffin and it is full sight of them, not that there are merely guards in the area.
Yes, the example is extreme, but this is because some people are trying to take the position that, by the RAW, once you make your roll you are hidden, that's it, you cannot be found unless people beat your Stealth roll (or you take one of the proscribed actions) no matter how extreme the situation, and anyone who thinks different is not following the rules correctly.
Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition.
So it's not automatic. And I'd give "guards" who are "on duty" advantage on Perception to catch interlopers...
(And, as has been noted many times, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." So, like, doing this in a confined-but-open space in full view of guards may just not work. Gotta distract 'em! But we're dealing with an absurd extreme in this conversation, so carry on.)
My apologies I should have made it clear that, in that example, the guards are basically standing there around the macguffin and it is full sight of them, not that there are merely guards in the area.
Yes, the example is extreme, but this is because some people are trying to take the position that, by the RAW, once you make your roll you are hidden, that's it, you cannot be found unless people beat your Stealth roll (or you take one of the proscribed actions) no matter how extreme the situation, and anyone who thinks different is not following the rules correctly.
Way to misrepresent other people's arguments, gold star for you. I, for one, have specifically advocated for limited activities while hidden BECAUSE they would make noise louder than a whisper. You're the one insisting that shenanigans like juggling torches can be done silently because the RAW doesn't say otherwise, as if that's some kind of gotcha. Take it from a sound engineer, juggling clubs, flaming or not, is louder than whispering. Hell, some people BREATHE louder than a whisper, so they'd lose Hide immediately.
The point is that you shouldn't default to the general "do what you want" rule when a specific rule sufficiently address a situation. The mechanic to find a hidden creature is specifically proscribed in at least three different places, and in particular that it is "never trivial" to do so. Sure, play how you want, maximize fun and minimize agony, I'm not in your party. But instead of merely dodging the rule that you can't reconcile, you could have tried to create ways to increase the risks and fun. The simplest idea is to require a new check for every action taken in order to remain silent enough to not break Hide:
While passing the guards, you feel a rumble in your gut; those rations were moldy after all, Con save DC 10 to avoid farting loud enough to hear.
You want to take the MacGuffin? Better hit that Sleight of Hand so you don't fumble it or topple the stand it's on, DC 15 at least.
There's a 6 foot high gate, hit acrobatics so you vault it with a 10-point landing, all quieter than a whisper, DC 25.
Try to pick the rusty, squeaky lock, when you're in a guarded hall that's quiet enough to hear a pin drop, DC 30.
No one believes that one stealth roll is good enough to remain silent forever, so why are you acting like that's the RAW? It isn't, and nobody ever said it is. Only that Invisible means what it says, that you can't be seen, and that's it.
No one believes that one stealth roll is good enough to remain silent forever, so why are you acting like that's the RAW? It isn't, and nobody ever said it is.
I think some people (despite being shown overwhelming evidence of the contrary) actually do believe that hiding once means being Invisible forever, and that's why this thread is 37 pages long... and counting?
No one believes that one stealth roll is good enough to remain silent forever, so why are you acting like that's the RAW? It isn't, and nobody ever said it is. Only that Invisible means what it says, that you can't be seen, and that's it.
So how exactly does one stop being silent if they do not speak/cast a spell with a V component? Is there some RAW that defines how noise is involuntarily made? And if not, why is it suddenly acceptable to come up with undefined other ways a character can be found via sound, but not undefined other ways a character can be found via sight?
I don't know. Maybe the Rogue steals the magic macguffin, which is why the hall is guarded like that. After all, even if there are people all around the macguffin they can't see the Rogue. All he needs to do is grab it, Dash (since grabbing isn't an Attack and Dash doesn't break Stealth), then use his Bonus Action to Dash again. Now the guards have no clue where his is and are completely unable to find him.
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
So how exactly does one stop being silent if they do not speak/cast a spell with a V component? Is there some RAW that defines how noise is involuntarily made? And if not, why is it suddenly acceptable to come up with undefined other ways a character can be found via sound, but not undefined other ways a character can be found via sight?
"Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition."
Show me the RAW that everything is silent. Show me the RAW that your clothes get bloody or damaged when you get stabbed. Show me the RAW that you can't hold 1000 candles in a hand (candles don't have a listed weight, after all).
Or accept that the majority of "reality" is, necessarily, a matter of DM rulings and judgement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Abuse" in this context means taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation. Abusing a loophole, abusing an exploit, abusing a vulnerability, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by that first part.
Is it really a balance issue when that's what the Rogue's whole class is about? If you need to put seven levels into a class to reliably pull off a skill check, I'd say that's balanced. The Wizard (and other classes) have access to all sorts of crazy stuff by that level to balance it out. In fact, a Wizard can cast Invisibility starting at level 2. And, of course, as we've previously covered, there's always the DM's ability to simply say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight. Would you like to try a different approach?" A DM would have a much harder time coming up with reasons why a Wizard can't cast Invisibility in this particular scenario.
Unless you expect your party to walk through endless halls each with two guards in bright light (poor design), then the level 2 Wizard would be on par with the level 7 Rogue in terms of stealth abilities. Is that what you mean by unbalanced?
Edit: Wizards gain access to Invisibility starting at level 3, not level 2. Thanks for catching that, ArntItheBest!
I have Darkvision, by the way.
A Wizard can't cast Invisibility until level 3. But the bigger problem with your second paragraph is the DM's stating that they can easily be seen is in violation of the RAW, so it is homebrew/table rule. And the 7 levels is not to "reliably pull off a skill check", it is to do this 100% of the time without fail. And it is basically the equivalent of a 4th level spell, for free, all day long.
There is nothing in the Hide rules that say you cannot walk down the hallway in plain sight, because you're not in plain sight, you're Invisible. Just like you would be if the Wizard cast Invisibility. All these people saying that the spell is different than Hiding are a) not reading the rules or b) injecting what they believe RAI to be. Both make you Invisible the only difference is the spell doesn't let you cast non-verbal spells and that someone can make a Perception check to find a Hiding creature.
There are some easy ways to fix this:
1.) Add monsters that have Piercing resistance or even immunity if you're that kind of DM. You can grant a high HP pool and Bludgeoning (or some other) weakness to give other classes time to shine if the Rogue has been the star of the session up until now.
2.) Create a map where there isn't much cover available.
3.) Have enemies use AoE abilities, grenades, etc. in the last-known location of the Rogue. If they're just stay put behind cover and never move, then the enemies can safely assume the Rogue is still there.
4.) Midway through the fight, have monsters come in through whichever entrance the players used (or from behind where the Rogue is squatting), effectively flanking the Rogue.
I really don't feel like it's that big of an issue. Rogues are the only class that can reliably use Stealth and they only get one attack per round, and deal basically all Piercing damage. I feel like they're actually one of the better classes in terms of balance at the moment.
Action Economy is one thing, but if you have all these bonus actions but can only attack one enemy per turn, I really don't feel like the game breaks down at this point.
Action Economy has always been (and probably always will be) a challenge for DMs to solve when building encounters. This is basically just that in a nutshell.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
To be fair, there's nothing in the invisible condition that says you can't be seen. Just consequences if you can't be seen. However, this is pretty clearly not RAI.
That's correct, Wizards don't get level 2 spell slots until level 3. Thanks for catching that.
A DM stating that the character can be seen is not in violation of RAW. The flow of gameplay has the character explain what they do and then the DM describing what happens due to their choices. Per RAW players don't get to just roll to do whatever they want whenever they like and decide what happens, otherwise players could just say, "I want to roll Survival 100 times and on success I find 10 Platinum coins." Stealth even says that it's up to the DM to decide when hiding is appropriate.
To quote the PHB:
The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. Sometimes resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer walks across a room and tries to open a door, the DM might say the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM might ask the player to roll a die to help determine what happens. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1.
This means level 7 Rogue asks, "Can I sneak past those guards while in plan sight?" The DM may ask for a skill check. They might also just flat-out say no. If the Rogue didn't specify how they were approaching the situation, the DM could even say that the Rogue has to roll Deception at disadvantage instead of Stealth to try to pretend like they're a guard passing through. If a Player asks, "Can I roll for X?" You're not actually playing RAW since it's up to the DM to decide when it's appropriate to ask for skill checks. Most D&D/Pathfinder-only players I've played with have the awful habit of asking if they can roll to do something, not ask if they can do something and communicating with the GM how they imagine it working out. Not only is it RAW, it makes for better gameplay.
To quote the DMG again:
"Rules Aren't Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don't let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn't define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round."
"Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone is reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light."
In short, this is RAW:
Rogue: I want to sneak past the guards down this hall.
DM: Okay, describe what your plan is.
Rogue: I just walk right past them, can I roll Stealth and Hide?
DM: Where are you hiding in a well-lit, corridor with no cover?
Rogue: Good point, I need to rethink my approach...
What everyone else seems to think is RAW:
Rogue: I roll Stealth to sneak past these guards. Yes! I rolled a 34!!
DM: You've gained permanent invisibility and can do anything you want from here on out. Well done, you've beat Dungeons and Dragons. You're the DM now.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
There is. It is the 'Condition persists unless someone finds you', clause of the Hide action. That is RAW. Saying that the only way they can do that is to beat your DC is not, actually, RAW.
What the RAW say is that that is one way you can be found. It does not demand exclusivity (the wording can be interpreted so that a pedantic player can demand that it is the DC for any Intelligence (Perception) roll to find you, but then the DM can say 'they don't need a roll to see you sitting on the throne. Sure, if they were roiling, that would be the DC, but since the situation you put yourself in doesn't require them to roll, you're found').
As I said earlier, the majority of this type of RAW argument (strictly written RAW allows something silly to happen) only work because the 'lawyer' in question has slipped something in that the RAW do not support (in the case of the Peasant Railgun that accelerating the spear must increase the damage, in this case that the DC to find the character always applies and that there is no other way to 'find' someone who has succeeded on the Hide action with a good roll),
Hell, I just realized that using the interpretation that beating that DC is the only way to perceive the character means Truesight is useless against a character who used Stealth.
"Sorry, the only way to find me is to make a DC 32 Intelligence (Perception) roll. Truesight let's you see me even though I have the Invisible Condition, but RAW, you still need to beat 32 for find me. Truesight lets you see Invisible creatures, but it doesn't say you automatically find them. Once you find me, then you can see me."
That, of course, is ludicrous. However, it does illustrate that there clearly are ways other than beating the DC to find the character. This mitigates a lot of the RAW argument because now the rules lawyer have to either accept that the statement was not meant to be exclusive, or they have to accept that it was meant to be exclusive, but it is clearly in error since there are exceptions, and so can't be used strictly 'As Written'.
Yes, the logical argument is 'my interpretation is that the statement was meant to be exclusive, baring explicit exceptions. The fact that there are explicit exceptions is implied', but now you have left 'RAW' and I can just as easily counter 'my interpretation is that the statement was not meant to be exclusive, and while there are explicit exceptions they are not the only exceptions'.
This takes us into RAI which is an entirely separate container of annelids.
I'll split the difference with you. Abuse in this context means knowingly taking advantage of an unbalanced or exploitable situation.
My position is not that the other players are knowingly taking advantage of an exploitable situation. They feel that the developers intended for the rules to work that way, and I can respect that. I disagree with how they feel, but I'm not going to demand they stop feeling that way.
Since they feel that way, the don't perceive what they are doing as a 'loophole', thus they cannot be 'knowingly' exploiting it, regardless of anyone else's interpretation.
(of course, if they do think they found a loophole and this isn't what the developers intended then yes, they are 'abusing' the system)
As far as Balance goes, yes, if the DM can say "The guards could easily spot you if you walk down the hall in plain sight" then there is a Balance. Invisibility is even stronger than mere Stealth, but it has much more limited usage.
Having unlimited use of an ability that can fully replicate a limited use ability is not, as a general rule, good balance. (I won't make an absolute statement because exceptions can always exist).
Depending on the spell they cast a Wizard can easily out damage a Fighter, move faster than a Monk, or out sneak a Rogue. However, they can only do so perhaps a dozen times in a day while the Fighter can just keep swinging his sword, the Monk can just keep jogging along, and the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding as often as they like.
Okay, that makes sense given my post as written vs post as intended (lol)
One thing I want to ask about is the last part of your post that I've made bold. If the Rogue can pop in and out of hiding whenever they like (I'd rule this as at DM's discretion, but I don't want to split hairs), how is that actually unbalanced? That seems to me like the class just doing what it does, given that Rogues have plenty of other limitations. I don't feel like the game breaks down in any way due to this, and especially not in any way that the DM wouldn't obviously prevent. Got any specific examples?
I have Darkvision, by the way.
It isn't unbalanced, as long as it is not as strong as something with much more limited use (e.g., the Invisibility spell).
So one example of this is the position that the Rogue cannot simply walk down the hall past the guards. Stealth might cover 95% of the cases that Invisibility covers, but those remaining 5% remain a weakness which helps to balance the 'unlimited use' against the 'finite spell slots'.
To allow Stealth to actually confer full Invisibility and allow the character to walk between the two guards in our hypothetic corridor means that Stealth covers 100% of the cases that Invisibility covers and it no longer has that weakness, and now the question of Balance rears its head.
Now, Balance is an argument to sway opinion. It should not be taken as 'it can't let you walk past those guards because that's the only thing balancing everything out'. There are requirements for when you can roll Stealth that are much more stringent that casting Invisibility. Even if those conditions are met, the character could get a bad roll. Etcetera. All of those also weaken Stealth slightly in relation to the Invisibility spell.
I just do not think those drawbacks are significant enough to fully 'balance the books', but that's simply my opinion. YMMV.
I guess the way I'm looking at it is that it only seems unbalanced in a situation where Stealth actually does give a game-changing advantage in the session/campaign that's being played. In a heist campaign, sure why not play all Rogues? That would be loads of fun. But that's also sort of the point. In an adventure campaign where you have to brave the wilderness and deal with many Survival checks, Stealth is useless.
Without context, it doesn't make sense to call it a balance issue. If there was only one encounter in the adventure that might require Stealth, awesome. The Rogue aces it. Then the Wizard casts Invisibility on themselves. What are the Fighter and Barbarian doing in the encounter? The Rogue is just doing what they do.
Another example:
The party is crossing a rickety bridge that collapses. Everyone falls into a river and is swept away and needs to roll an Athletics check. Invisibility (the spell) and Hiding (the action) are perfectly balanced here. They both do effectively nothing.
Another thing to take into consideration is that the Rogue can also only Hide themselves. The Wizard can cast Invisibility on anyone. I still feel like the Wizard has the upper hand here.
I have Darkvision, by the way.
The "stealth past the guards" scenario is also bogus to begin with. Say you let the rogue pass them unnoticed. Then what? Go on a solo adventure while the rest of the team twiddles their thumbs? Fight the guards? Ok, well all the stealth effectively did is give surprise and a sneak attack to start combat. Are you truly bothered by one advantage roll that much?
Again, these are almost exclusively narrative complaints, not mechanical ones. Spellcasters have infinite cantrip uses, and multiple cantrips to boot. Rogues get one qualified Invisibility cantrip. That's the least unbalanced element in the entire game.
I don't know. Maybe the Rogue steals the magic macguffin, which is why the hall is guarded like that. After all, even if there are people all around the macguffin they can't see the Rogue. All he needs to do is grab it, Dash (since grabbing isn't an Attack and Dash doesn't break Stealth), then use his Bonus Action to Dash again. Now the guards have no clue where his is and are completely unable to find him.
And sure, cantrips don't have a limit to how much they can be cast. Do you know something else? They are all less effective than what the non-casters can do all day long (though I will admit that they often stack nicely onto the things non-casters do all day long).
Cantrips like True Strike and Booming Blade only become really damaging when combined with things a pure Wizard is not good at. They might be great for an Eldritch Knight, but a wizard using Booming Blade with their simple melee weapon is not going to be out damaging a Barbarian of the same level.
Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition.
So it's not automatic. And I'd give "guards" who are "on duty" advantage on Perception to catch interlopers...
(And, as has been noted many times, "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." So, like, doing this in a confined-but-open space in full view of guards may just not work. Gotta distract 'em! But we're dealing with an absurd extreme in this conversation, so carry on.)
My apologies I should have made it clear that, in that example, the guards are basically standing there around the macguffin and it is full sight of them, not that there are merely guards in the area.
Yes, the example is extreme, but this is because some people are trying to take the position that, by the RAW, once you make your roll you are hidden, that's it, you cannot be found unless people beat your Stealth roll (or you take one of the proscribed actions) no matter how extreme the situation, and anyone who thinks different is not following the rules correctly.
Way to misrepresent other people's arguments, gold star for you. I, for one, have specifically advocated for limited activities while hidden BECAUSE they would make noise louder than a whisper. You're the one insisting that shenanigans like juggling torches can be done silently because the RAW doesn't say otherwise, as if that's some kind of gotcha. Take it from a sound engineer, juggling clubs, flaming or not, is louder than whispering. Hell, some people BREATHE louder than a whisper, so they'd lose Hide immediately.
The point is that you shouldn't default to the general "do what you want" rule when a specific rule sufficiently address a situation. The mechanic to find a hidden creature is specifically proscribed in at least three different places, and in particular that it is "never trivial" to do so. Sure, play how you want, maximize fun and minimize agony, I'm not in your party. But instead of merely dodging the rule that you can't reconcile, you could have tried to create ways to increase the risks and fun. The simplest idea is to require a new check for every action taken in order to remain silent enough to not break Hide:
No one believes that one stealth roll is good enough to remain silent forever, so why are you acting like that's the RAW? It isn't, and nobody ever said it is. Only that Invisible means what it says, that you can't be seen, and that's it.
I think some people (despite being shown overwhelming evidence of the contrary) actually do believe that hiding once means being Invisible forever, and that's why this thread is 37 pages long... and counting?
I have Darkvision, by the way.
So how exactly does one stop being silent if they do not speak/cast a spell with a V component? Is there some RAW that defines how noise is involuntarily made? And if not, why is it suddenly acceptable to come up with undefined other ways a character can be found via sound, but not undefined other ways a character can be found via sight?
To make a grapple you need to make a attack, so would break the hide
Grapple no longer makes an attack roll, the target instead must succeed on a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (it chooses which), or it has the Grappled condition.
"Movement makes noise. To move without making noise, you need a Stealth roll (and beat nearby Passive Perception scores). This is, quite literally, part of the Stealth definition."
Show me the RAW that everything is silent. Show me the RAW that your clothes get bloody or damaged when you get stabbed. Show me the RAW that you can't hold 1000 candles in a hand (candles don't have a listed weight, after all).
Or accept that the majority of "reality" is, necessarily, a matter of DM rulings and judgement.