Firstly to the person going on about me being focused on first round, once spotted you loose your Advantage and while you can use your BA for Hide, that isnt always going to work and you as the player has to realize that.
That is completely irrelevant to the question I was asking. If you are hidden then you have the benefits of being hidden and are an unseen attacker. If you were spotted then clearly you're nothidden - are you? So when I asked about being hidden - I literally meant having the mechanical benefits of being hidden - and I only asked because BKThomson used the word in the OP and that confused me - because someone actually hidden already has advantage and wouldn't need to Steady Aim.
As I stated in my post at post #8, you are not moving when standing from a crouched position and there are zero RAW to that effect, see sage link below. Also since OP has bolded the part they are talking about, if you are behind total cover you cant use the ability without breaking cover, which comes back to how movement is defined within the system. You are not prone by definition of the game by being crouched, so standing up doesnt count as movement.
And this brings us back to my point in comment 7. There are no rules for crouching. So RAW you have to be defined as standing or prone. If you have full cover while standing, you can't attack. If you have full cover while prone (but wouldn't standing), you must stand which uses movement.
As I stated in my post at post #8, you are not moving when standing from a crouched position and there are zero RAW to that effect, see sage link below. Also since OP has bolded the part they are talking about, if you are behind total cover you cant use the ability without breaking cover, which comes back to how movement is defined within the system. You are not prone by definition of the game by being crouched, so standing up doesnt count as movement.
And this brings us back to my point in comment 7. There are no rules for crouching. So RAW you have to be defined as standing or prone. If you have full cover while standing, you can't attack. If you have full cover while prone (but wouldn't standing), you must stand which uses movement.
But you arent defined prone since you can can still move from such a position. I take standing up from a crouch the same way as you open a door to walk through, it dont take any action to do therefore doesnt take movement. Now, I would also go one step further and state that only armor that doesnt give a disadvantage to stealth wouldnt take movement to do such since majority of armor that gives disadvantage is metallic in nature, even holding a shield would take such effort since you have the chance of catching it on something.
As I stated in my post at post #8, you are not moving when standing from a crouched position and there are zero RAW to that effect, see sage link below. Also since OP has bolded the part they are talking about, if you are behind total cover you cant use the ability without breaking cover, which comes back to how movement is defined within the system. You are not prone by definition of the game by being crouched, so standing up doesnt count as movement.
And this brings us back to my point in comment 7. There are no rules for crouching. So RAW you have to be defined as standing or prone. If you have full cover while standing, you can't attack. If you have full cover while prone (but wouldn't standing), you must stand which uses movement.
But you arent defined prone since you can can still move from such a position. I take standing up from a crouch the same way as you open a door to walk through, it dont take any action to do therefore doesnt take movement. Now, I would also go one step further and state that only armor that doesnt give a disadvantage to stealth wouldnt take movement to do such since majority of armor that gives disadvantage is metallic in nature, even holding a shield would take such effort since you have the chance of catching it on something.
As per the sage advice link, there are no rules for "crouching", so any rules around crouching are entirely homebrew. I like the sound of 1/4 of your speed to get from crouching, however.
As I stated in my post at post #8, you are not moving when standing from a crouched position and there are zero RAW to that effect, see sage link below. Also since OP has bolded the part they are talking about, if you are behind total cover you cant use the ability without breaking cover, which comes back to how movement is defined within the system. You are not prone by definition of the game by being crouched, so standing up doesnt count as movement.
And this brings us back to my point in comment 7. There are no rules for crouching. So RAW you have to be defined as standing or prone. If you have full cover while standing, you can't attack. If you have full cover while prone (but wouldn't standing), you must stand which uses movement.
But you arent defined prone since you can can still move from such a position. I take standing up from a crouch the same way as you open a door to walk through, it dont take any action to do therefore doesnt take movement. Now, I would also go one step further and state that only armor that doesnt give a disadvantage to stealth wouldnt take movement to do such since majority of armor that gives disadvantage is metallic in nature, even holding a shield would take such effort since you have the chance of catching it on something.
All I'm saying is that if you aren't prone, then you don't get any extra cover than you would from standing.
And everything you just said about armor is completely homebrew. Which is fine, but doesn't add anything to the discussion of "crouching for extra cover" not being RAW.
I think that standing and crouching, which require none of your movement speed, and take very little time, are totally fine with steady aim. Your turn is 6 seconds long. Using all of your movement takes 6 seconds. Walking or running or jumping even only a short distance takes time and gets you off balance.
However, standing from a crouch takes less than 1 second, leaving you 5 seconds to steady your aim and shoot.
SA appears to feel as I do, this is VERY "DM decision" rule wording. As a DM, I would allow you to rise from a crouch and use Steady aim. At the end of your turn, however, you are under 1/2 cover at best. (My picture is crouched behind a crate around waist high or so) Mechanically, you could pop up, Focus Aim for a few seconds and squeeze off the shot. That uses up all your time in that round, however, so when the new round begins (or turns on the current continue) you are only getting 1/2 cover, maybe even 1/4 depending on what it is.
I think Wizards writes some rules like this to ensure DMs are involved in the mechanics and have some leeway in interpretation. If something is outlined too clearly and someone starts finding a way to abuse it, you can end up with a lot of rules lawyers fighting with DMs about HOW it should go. DM always wins, as the book says, but having something printed gives the rules lawyers more reason to feel entitled and anno to start making noise over. If it's LESS detailed, then they all need to ask the DM if it works a certain way, or for clarification, making the decision on the spot, and cementing (mostly) how it will go as you proceed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I think that standing and crouching, which require none of your movement speed, and take very little time, are totally fine with steady aim. Your turn is 6 seconds long. Using all of your movement takes 6 seconds. Walking or running or jumping even only a short distance takes time and gets you off balance.
However, standing from a crouch takes less than 1 second, leaving you 5 seconds to steady your aim and shoot.
I can somewhat see your point but I have a hard time with it. To me it feels too much like wanting all the mechanical benefits of not being standing while incurring none of the penalties for not being standing.
DJC's idea of 1/4 movement for crouching seems good to me.
I think that standing and crouching, which require none of your movement speed, and take very little time, are totally fine with steady aim. Your turn is 6 seconds long. Using all of your movement takes 6 seconds. Walking or running or jumping even only a short distance takes time and gets you off balance.
However, standing from a crouch takes less than 1 second, leaving you 5 seconds to steady your aim and shoot.
I can somewhat see your point but I have a hard time with it. To me it feels too much like wanting all the mechanical benefits of not being standing while incurring none of the penalties for not being standing.
DJC's idea of 1/4 movement for crouching seems good to me.
1) Personally, charging 1/4 of movement to rise from a crouch seems ridiculous. The difference in starting moving from standing vs jumping up from a crouch is pretty much negligible for a reasonably fit adventurer.
2) However, I would say that standing up from a crouch IS movement. It may not cost a specifiable amount of feet from the characters movement for the turn but if the character rises from a crouch to standing they would be considered moving.
3) With this interpretation, Steady Aim is not applicable since when rising from a crouch the character is moving. Having moved, they can not use steady aim.
4) In a situation where a rogue is crouched behind total cover they would be much better off using cunning action to hide as a bonus action and then pop up and shoot. It is true that they may or may not succeed on the stealth check but with this interpretation steady aim is not an option since they moved from a crouch to standing.
I'd also say that the standing/crouching negates Steady Aim, purely from thinking about how it would work. You gain the advantage through lack of movement. Standing from a crouch would be just as, if not more, disturbing to an aim than taking a step. Also, if you were behind full cover before standing, you would not be able to see your target. Therefore, once you have stood, you must take more time to locate your target and orient yourself correctly (more body movement). Overall, it feels wrong. Given there are no rules specifically for crouching, I would rule that this is enough movement to negate Steady Aim (and would probably bring in a house rule requiring movement to stand from a crouch, even if just 1ft).
If you want Steady Aim, remain Steady for your turn and Aim before you fire.
Do note that, by RAW, Steady Aim is not ruined by getting attacked, making a DEX save, or any other mechanics that do not require a move action / a non-zero speed. It is assumed that characters have all sorts of incidental movement during combat, even when they don't change squares, and that incidental movement doesn't spoil Steady Aim.
The game doesn't track posture beyond "prone or not," so crouching doesn't matter. Just how much cover some piece of the environment provides is entirely up the DM, and "low wall" is a canonical example of half cover.
I'd also say that the standing/crouching negates Steady Aim, purely from thinking about how it would work. You gain the advantage through lack of movement. Standing from a crouch would be just as, if not more, disturbing to an aim than taking a step. Also, if you were behind full cover before standing, you would not be able to see your target. Therefore, once you have stood, you must take more time to locate your target and orient yourself correctly (more body movement). Overall, it feels wrong. Given there are no rules specifically for crouching, I would rule that this is enough movement to negate Steady Aim (and would probably bring in a house rule requiring movement to stand from a crouch, even if just 1ft).
If you want Steady Aim, remain Steady for your turn and Aim before you fire.
Gotta love the rules lawyers.
You are 100% accurate. The basic rules state that getting up from a Prone Position costs half your movement, therefore you moved that turn, therefore Steady Aim is unavailable that turn.
Maybe I'm missing something - but if you're hidden behind cover - you already have advantage for being an unseen attacker. Why would you aim because it wouldn't give you anything you don't already have?
Have we ever circled around on why someone would need to aim to get advantage when they are presumably already hidden? I saw a little back and forth on this discussing the details of Emmber's question, but nothing substantive.
Maybe I'm missing something - but if you're hidden behind cover - you already have advantage for being an unseen attacker. Why would you aim because it wouldn't give you anything you don't already have?
Have we ever circled around on why someone would need to aim to get advantage when they are presumably already hidden? I saw a little back and forth on this discussing the details of Emmber's question, but nothing substantive.
The OP replied to me in reply #18 saying they meant hidden as in crouching behind cover and not actually mechanically hidden.
Maybe I'm missing something - but if you're hidden behind cover - you already have advantage for being an unseen attacker. Why would you aim because it wouldn't give you anything you don't already have?
Have we ever circled around on why someone would need to aim to get advantage when they are presumably already hidden? I saw a little back and forth on this discussing the details of Emmber's question, but nothing substantive.
The OP replied to me in reply #18 saying they meant hidden as in crouching behind cover and not actually mechanically hidden.
That is correct, and think I updated the post after that conversation. If I am remembering the encounter correctly the player was trying to retain Full Cover while able to pop-up during her turn to fire her crossbow and then go pron afterward believing that since she was not 'moving moving' Steady Aim was available to her. My ruling at the time was Steady Aim was not usable in that type of turn.
"Crouching" is not a mechanic included in D&D 5e. However, for reference it takes half movement to stand up from being prone (because you move), so it is reasonable to assume that standing up from a crouch would likewise cost movement (because you move). Remember, just like you can jump both horizontally and vertically, you can move horizontally and vertically as well. In the end, "crouching" is homebrew territory or flavor (no mechanic involved) so it completely depends on what you feel works best.
That is completely irrelevant to the question I was asking. If you are hidden then you have the benefits of being hidden and are an unseen attacker. If you were spotted then clearly you're not hidden - are you? So when I asked about being hidden - I literally meant having the mechanical benefits of being hidden - and I only asked because BKThomson used the word in the OP and that confused me - because someone actually hidden already has advantage and wouldn't need to Steady Aim.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
And this brings us back to my point in comment 7. There are no rules for crouching. So RAW you have to be defined as standing or prone. If you have full cover while standing, you can't attack. If you have full cover while prone (but wouldn't standing), you must stand which uses movement.
But you arent defined prone since you can can still move from such a position. I take standing up from a crouch the same way as you open a door to walk through, it dont take any action to do therefore doesnt take movement. Now, I would also go one step further and state that only armor that doesnt give a disadvantage to stealth wouldnt take movement to do such since majority of armor that gives disadvantage is metallic in nature, even holding a shield would take such effort since you have the chance of catching it on something.
As per the sage advice link, there are no rules for "crouching", so any rules around crouching are entirely homebrew. I like the sound of 1/4 of your speed to get from crouching, however.
All I'm saying is that if you aren't prone, then you don't get any extra cover than you would from standing.
And everything you just said about armor is completely homebrew. Which is fine, but doesn't add anything to the discussion of "crouching for extra cover" not being RAW.
is this an actual feature if is this a home brew?
Not sure to which part you are referring.
I think that standing and crouching, which require none of your movement speed, and take very little time, are totally fine with steady aim. Your turn is 6 seconds long. Using all of your movement takes 6 seconds. Walking or running or jumping even only a short distance takes time and gets you off balance.
However, standing from a crouch takes less than 1 second, leaving you 5 seconds to steady your aim and shoot.
SA appears to feel as I do, this is VERY "DM decision" rule wording. As a DM, I would allow you to rise from a crouch and use Steady aim. At the end of your turn, however, you are under 1/2 cover at best. (My picture is crouched behind a crate around waist high or so) Mechanically, you could pop up, Focus Aim for a few seconds and squeeze off the shot. That uses up all your time in that round, however, so when the new round begins (or turns on the current continue) you are only getting 1/2 cover, maybe even 1/4 depending on what it is.
I think Wizards writes some rules like this to ensure DMs are involved in the mechanics and have some leeway in interpretation. If something is outlined too clearly and someone starts finding a way to abuse it, you can end up with a lot of rules lawyers fighting with DMs about HOW it should go. DM always wins, as the book says, but having something printed gives the rules lawyers more reason to feel entitled and anno to start making noise over. If it's LESS detailed, then they all need to ask the DM if it works a certain way, or for clarification, making the decision on the spot, and cementing (mostly) how it will go as you proceed.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I can somewhat see your point but I have a hard time with it. To me it feels too much like wanting all the mechanical benefits of not being standing while incurring none of the penalties for not being standing.
DJC's idea of 1/4 movement for crouching seems good to me.
1) Personally, charging 1/4 of movement to rise from a crouch seems ridiculous. The difference in starting moving from standing vs jumping up from a crouch is pretty much negligible for a reasonably fit adventurer.
2) However, I would say that standing up from a crouch IS movement. It may not cost a specifiable amount of feet from the characters movement for the turn but if the character rises from a crouch to standing they would be considered moving.
3) With this interpretation, Steady Aim is not applicable since when rising from a crouch the character is moving. Having moved, they can not use steady aim.
4) In a situation where a rogue is crouched behind total cover they would be much better off using cunning action to hide as a bonus action and then pop up and shoot. It is true that they may or may not succeed on the stealth check but with this interpretation steady aim is not an option since they moved from a crouch to standing.
I'd also say that the standing/crouching negates Steady Aim, purely from thinking about how it would work. You gain the advantage through lack of movement. Standing from a crouch would be just as, if not more, disturbing to an aim than taking a step. Also, if you were behind full cover before standing, you would not be able to see your target. Therefore, once you have stood, you must take more time to locate your target and orient yourself correctly (more body movement). Overall, it feels wrong. Given there are no rules specifically for crouching, I would rule that this is enough movement to negate Steady Aim (and would probably bring in a house rule requiring movement to stand from a crouch, even if just 1ft).
If you want Steady Aim, remain Steady for your turn and Aim before you fire.
Do note that, by RAW, Steady Aim is not ruined by getting attacked, making a DEX save, or any other mechanics that do not require a move action / a non-zero speed. It is assumed that characters have all sorts of incidental movement during combat, even when they don't change squares, and that incidental movement doesn't spoil Steady Aim.
The game doesn't track posture beyond "prone or not," so crouching doesn't matter. Just how much cover some piece of the environment provides is entirely up the DM, and "low wall" is a canonical example of half cover.
Gotta love the rules lawyers.
You are 100% accurate. The basic rules state that getting up from a Prone Position costs half your movement, therefore you moved that turn, therefore Steady Aim is unavailable that turn.
Have we ever circled around on why someone would need to aim to get advantage when they are presumably already hidden? I saw a little back and forth on this discussing the details of Emmber's question, but nothing substantive.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The OP replied to me in reply #18 saying they meant hidden as in crouching behind cover and not actually mechanically hidden.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
That is correct, and think I updated the post after that conversation. If I am remembering the encounter correctly the player was trying to retain Full Cover while able to pop-up during her turn to fire her crossbow and then go pron afterward believing that since she was not 'moving moving' Steady Aim was available to her. My ruling at the time was Steady Aim was not usable in that type of turn.
"Crouching" is not a mechanic included in D&D 5e. However, for reference it takes half movement to stand up from being prone (because you move), so it is reasonable to assume that standing up from a crouch would likewise cost movement (because you move). Remember, just like you can jump both horizontally and vertically, you can move horizontally and vertically as well. In the end, "crouching" is homebrew territory or flavor (no mechanic involved) so it completely depends on what you feel works best.
How about the rogue spends its bonus action for steady aim and then directs its horse to move because the rogue is mounted?
doesn’t say you can’t benefit from another creatures speed, just that your own speed turns to 0.
That sounds like a pretty good and creative loophole, that would almost certainly be house-ruled away. But kudos for creativity :)