So the issue is the monk can specialize itself for stealth and still be worse than any other class that does the same.
If more defense and more mobility while sneaking makes you worse, the issue is your table, not the class.
They don't have more mobility or defense. Other classes are just as tough, and movement speed is only relevant in combat. Other classes have better climbing, swimming and teleporting giving them better mobility. movement speed is not the only type of mobility and is the least important form of mobility.
During stealth mobility speed is pretty important. It is generally 1/2 speed while being stealthy a monk has a increased base movement and a bonus action dash making them one of the fastest stealth class in the game. Need to cross a large gap of open terrain in a single turn while in stealth, the monk can do it without needing magic. Want to scout out a camp, the monk will do it faster than anyone except maybe the druid. The idea that movement speed only matters during combat is so counter to my play experience I'm kind of baffled by the statement. In my campaigns movement speed during stealth is generally more important than it is in combat.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
So the issue is the monk can specialize itself for stealth and still be worse than any other class that does the same.
If more defense and more mobility while sneaking makes you worse, the issue is your table, not the class.
They don't have more mobility or defense. Other classes are just as tough, and movement speed is only relevant in combat. Other classes have better climbing, swimming and teleporting giving them better mobility. movement speed is not the only type of mobility and is the least important form of mobility.
During stealth mobility speed is pretty important. It is generally 1/2 speed while being stealthy a monk has a increased base movement and a bonus action dash making them one of the fastest stealth class in the game. Need to cross a large gap of open terrain in a single turn while in stealth, the monk can do it without needing magic. Want to scout out a camp, the monk will do it faster than anyone except maybe the druid. The idea that movement speed only matters during combat is so counter to my play experience I'm kind of baffled by the statement. In my campaigns movement speed during stealth is generally more important than it is in combat.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
new stealth is perception versus stealth, but this may have been a problemm in 5e
So the issue is the monk can specialize itself for stealth and still be worse than any other class that does the same.
If more defense and more mobility while sneaking makes you worse, the issue is your table, not the class.
They don't have more mobility or defense. Other classes are just as tough, and movement speed is only relevant in combat. Other classes have better climbing, swimming and teleporting giving them better mobility. movement speed is not the only type of mobility and is the least important form of mobility.
During stealth mobility speed is pretty important. It is generally 1/2 speed while being stealthy a monk has a increased base movement and a bonus action dash making them one of the fastest stealth class in the game. Need to cross a large gap of open terrain in a single turn while in stealth, the monk can do it without needing magic. Want to scout out a camp, the monk will do it faster than anyone except maybe the druid. The idea that movement speed only matters during combat is so counter to my play experience I'm kind of baffled by the statement. In my campaigns movement speed during stealth is generally more important than it is in combat.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
new stealth is perception versus stealth, but this may have been a problemm in 5e
From the latest UA
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
While it doesn't say it outright, I would say that "an enemy finds you" includes "you walk across their field of vision without cover or obscurement". That is to say, your Invisible condition is reliant on maintaining the conditions that allowed the roll in the first place; you don't literally turn invisible.
So the issue is the monk can specialize itself for stealth and still be worse than any other class that does the same.
If more defense and more mobility while sneaking makes you worse, the issue is your table, not the class.
They don't have more mobility or defense. Other classes are just as tough, and movement speed is only relevant in combat. Other classes have better climbing, swimming and teleporting giving them better mobility. movement speed is not the only type of mobility and is the least important form of mobility.
During stealth mobility speed is pretty important. It is generally 1/2 speed while being stealthy a monk has a increased base movement and a bonus action dash making them one of the fastest stealth class in the game. Need to cross a large gap of open terrain in a single turn while in stealth, the monk can do it without needing magic. Want to scout out a camp, the monk will do it faster than anyone except maybe the druid. The idea that movement speed only matters during combat is so counter to my play experience I'm kind of baffled by the statement. In my campaigns movement speed during stealth is generally more important than it is in combat.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
new stealth is perception versus stealth, but this may have been a problemm in 5e
From the latest UA
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
While it doesn't say it outright, I would say that "an enemy finds you" includes "you walk across their field of vision without cover or obscurement". That is to say, your Invisible condition is reliant on maintaining the conditions that allowed the roll in the first place; you don't literally turn invisible.
it says how an enemy finds you, it says the enemy can find you with a perception check
Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
DMs are free to add extra rules if they want, but they outline how creatures are supposed to find you. once you say how monsters can find you, it would be redundant to say it again one sentence later.
note, that passive perception checks would still apply, if you are using passive rules.
also note the narrative might have some one find you as well. but narrative rarely needs to folllow raw anyway
So the issue is the monk can specialize itself for stealth and still be worse than any other class that does the same.
If more defense and more mobility while sneaking makes you worse, the issue is your table, not the class.
They don't have more mobility or defense. Other classes are just as tough, and movement speed is only relevant in combat. Other classes have better climbing, swimming and teleporting giving them better mobility. movement speed is not the only type of mobility and is the least important form of mobility.
During stealth mobility speed is pretty important. It is generally 1/2 speed while being stealthy a monk has a increased base movement and a bonus action dash making them one of the fastest stealth class in the game. Need to cross a large gap of open terrain in a single turn while in stealth, the monk can do it without needing magic. Want to scout out a camp, the monk will do it faster than anyone except maybe the druid. The idea that movement speed only matters during combat is so counter to my play experience I'm kind of baffled by the statement. In my campaigns movement speed during stealth is generally more important than it is in combat.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
new stealth is perception versus stealth, but this may have been a problemm in 5e
From the latest UA
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
While it doesn't say it outright, I would say that "an enemy finds you" includes "you walk across their field of vision without cover or obscurement". That is to say, your Invisible condition is reliant on maintaining the conditions that allowed the roll in the first place; you don't literally turn invisible.
it says how an enemy finds you, it says the enemy can find you with a perception check
Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
DMs are free to add extra rules if they want, but they outline how creatures are supposed to find you. once you say how monsters can find you, it would be redundant to say it again one sentence later.
note, that passive perception checks would still apply, if you are using passive rules.
also note the narrative might have some one find you as well. but narrative rarely needs to folllow raw anyway
Except that creates the circumstance where I could literally walk up and wave right in a guard's face and be completely undetected so long as they roll below my Stealth check. When it comes to interacting with the environment, RAW is where the system begins, but not where it ends. If someone sees you, they have found you, and given that you are not required to make a Perception check every time you attempt to see something that is right in front of your face, one can logically infer that the same principle applies here; a Perception check is for seeing something that is not in plain sight, not for determining if you notice someone walking right across your field of vision under adequate light.
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
While it doesn't say it outright, I would say that "an enemy finds you" includes "you walk across their field of vision without cover or obscurement". That is to say, your Invisible condition is reliant on maintaining the conditions that allowed the roll in the first place; you don't literally turn invisible.
it says how an enemy finds you, it says the enemy can find you with a perception check
Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
DMs are free to add extra rules if they want, but they outline how creatures are supposed to find you. once you say how monsters can find you, it would be redundant to say it again one sentence later.
note, that passive perception checks would still apply, if you are using passive rules.
also note the narrative might have some one find you as well. but narrative rarely needs to folllow raw anyway
Except that creates the circumstance where I could literally walk up and wave right in a guard's face and be completely undetected so long as they roll below my Stealth check. When it comes to interacting with the environment, RAW is where the system begins, but not where it ends. If someone sees you, they have found you, and given that you are not required to make a Perception check every time you attempt to see something that is right in front of your face, one can logically infer that the same principle applies here; a Perception check is for seeing something that is not in plain sight, not for determining if you notice someone walking right across your field of vision under adequate light.
RAW says that in order to find you they do perception checks.
what you are doing is changing raw into interpretation, because you don't like the idea they are presenting.
Its fine to disagree with the idea of perception vs stealth as the determiner, but its wrong to reinterpret the words in new ways to fit your definition. Because not all DMs or players will do that, and this is the UA.
If you want them to change it so you can be found by walking around and movement, now is the time to give that feedback.
As to why this change is actually better, is because dnd 5e doesnt have a concept of facing enemies, and field of vision is 360 degrees to as far as the eye can see.
that means effectively, hiding serves no purpose in 5e, and no one can sneak up on anyone. Which goes against the fantasy of sneaking classes, the actual normal world and combat.
by 5e rules, As soon as you leave cover, hiding dissipates, but while you are in cover, you already have all the benefits that hiding offers. This means hiding in 5e has no real use case, and is a waste of an action.
5e stealth/hiding was mess, the solution they chose is to abstract it, much like they abstract vision, and monks evasion, (you are not actually immune to fireball, you dodged it narratively speaking, though you havent strictly moved from your spot)
the current rule isnt saying you danced infront of the guards face, its saying within that 6 second time frame, he didnt notice you, and you stealthily avoided his notice.
narratively: you walk behind as he turns around, silent and deadly, literally a few feet behind him, unnoticed.
or
hyperfocused on the enemy in front him, he doesnt even notice as you skirt the edge of his vision
or
he closes his eyes and thinks of his sweet heart back home, and things that may happen to them later tonight.
On the board, yall are adjacent within 10 feet of each other
Your exact position in 5e at any given moment is in flux. You are at some point in that square in those seconds, but you are also wherever you possibly moved to, and where ever your reaction needed you to be at some point in that 6 second time frame. The whole round is actually happening at almost exactly the same time. its not 6 seconds for each person, and then the next person has 6 seconds. Its just 6 seconds with a ton of things happening, that are really only fully understood after the fact.
basically, the roll determines the outcome, and the DM or player can decided the details of how they avoided detection.
basically, the roll determines the outcome, and the DM or player can decided the details of how they avoided detection.
No, this very apparently leads to absolutely ludicrous circumstances.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
If this is how you are interpreting the rules, then this is an entirely valid outcome of those rules:
The rogue ducks behind a tree in the middle of a forest, and Hides. They roll a Nat 20 +5+3 for a 28. The then step out from behind that tree and walk 10 minutes down the middle of a road to the bandit camp. The bandits only have a +0-+3 Perception modifier so they are all incapable of detecting the rogue at any time. The rogue walks around completely in the open in broad daylight, and dumps poison into the cooking pot that two of the bandits are currently tending, and right in front of 6 others who are waiting to be served but none of them notice anything. The rogue then walks over to the shooting range where one of the bandits is practicing and walks over and takes the arrows right out of the target in front of them and the bandit doesn't notice them at all, and proceeds to go over to the equipment rack where a large dog is standing guard (+4 Perception + Keen Senses) and takes all of the bandit's weapons without the dog having any idea they are there. Finally they go over to the tent where the Bandit Captain is sitting working at a desk planning their next attack and stands right in the middle of the room and takes the piece of paper the Captain is currently writing on, and the Bandit Captain still doesn't see them.
The rogue then heads back, to the party by walking across an huge open plane where there is no cover at all, and three Rocs (Perception +4) are circling overhead looking for a taste-y meal but because that rogue 2 in-game hours ago rolled a Nat 20 while behind a tree, those Rocs can't see the rogue, and they can walk past just fine. The rogue then returns to the party camp and without speaking to anyone rolls up and goes to sleep. In the morning the rest of the party wakes up and is asking themself where is the Rogue? Did the rogue not come home last night? Because the Rogue is still invisible because none of the conditions for ending it have occurred yet.
No, this very apparently leads to absolutely ludicrous circumstances.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
Is that quote from the playtest hiding rules? I think it's fair to say that the current playtest hiding rule is such obvious BS it'd be a major blunder if it gets printed in a final release, as I highly doubt anyone will use those rules when they aren't modelling hiding as players would understand it at all.
Same as a lot of people ignore the fact that truesight and see invisibility barely work against invisibility in 5e; sometimes if a rule makes no logical sense, you end up with homebrew by intuition and everyone ends up playing the rule as it makes sense to them, rather than what it actually says.
I think the wording might have slightly changed from your quoted version though, in playtest 8 it only says "an enemy finds you", not "by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll" which introduced its own problems (as strictly speaking just trying to find you would end the condition, since it doesn't mention succeeding on a contest or such).
My conclusion thus far is that Wizards of the Coast have no idea how to model stealth and players and DMs are better off just using the only parts of the rules that make sense (e.g- the contested checks, and you can't hide from something that sees you) and just ignore the rest. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
basically, the roll determines the outcome, and the DM or player can decided the details of how they avoided detection.
No, this very apparently leads to absolutely ludicrous circumstances.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
If this is how you are interpreting the rules, then this is an entirely valid outcome of those rules:
The rogue ducks behind a tree in the middle of a forest, and Hides. They roll a Nat 20 +5+3 for a 28. The then step out from behind that tree and walk 10 minutes down the middle of a road to the bandit camp. The bandits only have a +0-+3 Perception modifier so they are all incapable of detecting the rogue at any time. The rogue walks around completely in the open in broad daylight, and dumps poison into the cooking pot that two of the bandits are currently tending, and right in front of 6 others who are waiting to be served but none of them notice anything. The rogue then walks over to the shooting range where one of the bandits is practicing and walks over and takes the arrows right out of the target in front of them and the bandit doesn't notice them at all, and proceeds to go over to the equipment rack where a large dog is standing guard (+4 Perception + Keen Senses) and takes all of the bandit's weapons without the dog having any idea they are there. Finally they go over to the tent where the Bandit Captain is sitting working at a desk planning their next attack and stands right in the middle of the room and takes the piece of paper the Captain is currently writing on, and the Bandit Captain still doesn't see them.
The rogue then heads back, to the party by walking across an huge open plane where there is no cover at all, and three Rocs (Perception +4) are circling overhead looking for a taste-y meal but because that rogue 2 in-game hours ago rolled a Nat 20 while behind a tree, those Rocs can't see the rogue, and they can walk past just fine. The rogue then returns to the party camp and without speaking to anyone rolls up and goes to sleep. In the morning the rest of the party wakes up and is asking themself where is the Rogue? Did the rogue not come home last night? Because the Rogue is still invisible because none of the conditions for ending it have occurred yet.
You are creating a narrative that doesnt match the dice roll. And ignoring that this is done all the time in 5e
its as valid as saying;
The monk level 15 monk looks into the eyes of the wizard from 5 miles out(rolls a 18 on his dex save), saying i cannot be harmed by your feeble magic. A giant swarm of meteors fly into into him each breaking against his skin, the fire absorbed by his gaze. the monk stands in a completely burnt out city, buildings, houses destroyed, slowly walking towards the mage.
no, thats not the narrative anyone would write. they would say the meteors simply missed him, he dodged out the way of a few and took cover.
You could have the narrative say naked barbarian catches the flaming greatsword in his pectoral muscle (monsters rolls 14 vs barbarian 15 AC) but you dont do that, you come up with a way to explain the roll that makes sense.
similarly, the master rogue would have avoided detection, shadowing enemies at times waiting for them to move at other times, or they were all asleep and poisioning the pot.
you cannot have an explict stealth system and abstract vision system. Either both need to be abstract, or both need to be explicit. They dont want high stealth to be inferior to spells anymore. they dont want hide to be a useless rule. They want players to be able to sneak up on enemies. If you can solve this in a system with 360 vision as far as the eye can see, without an abstraction, share your suggestion.
people have an idea that your position is concrete, and things are happening explicitly in 5e, but they specifically say its not. these rules are framework but not explicit. You arent really stationary in a 5foot space waiting for other people to act, its all simulataneous and contains everything that happened that round. But feel free to complain about it, its a test, it may not go through.
But you should be testing/evaluating it based on what it says, not what you think it should say.
what do you think exactly a 28 stealth represents. keep in mind 25 legendary, and 30 is nearly impossible. You think this person with nearly impossible stealth wold have trouble poisoning a pot with a bunch of people who could barely pay attention to anything? 10 is an easy roll. if they have +0 to stealth they are generally bad at paying attention to their surroundings.
No, this very apparently leads to absolutely ludicrous circumstances.
The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
Is that quote from the playtest hiding rules? I think it's fair to say that the current playtest hiding rule is such obvious BS it'd be a major blunder if it gets printed in a final release, as I highly doubt anyone will use those rules when they aren't modelling hiding as players would understand it at all.
Same as a lot of people ignore the fact that truesight and see invisibility barely work against invisibility in 5e; sometimes if a rule makes no logical sense, you end up with homebrew by intuition and everyone ends up playing the rule as it makes sense to them, rather than using what it actually says.
I think the wording might have slightly changed from your quoted version though, in playtest 8 it only says "an enemy finds you", not "by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll" which introduced its own problems (as strictly speaking just trying to find you would end the condition, since it doesn't mention succeeding on a contest or such).
My conclusion thus far is that Wizards of the Coast have no idea how to model stealth and players and DMs are better off just using the only parts of the rules that make sense (e.g- the contested checks, and you can't hide from something that sees you) and just ignore the rest. 😉
You say its BS because you arent used to it, but you have been fine for years dodging fireballs without moving from a 4 foot square, and seeing things literally behind your head, and 60 feet away, Dodging Greatswords with no armor without moving from a 5 foot square. Abstractions have always been a part of 5e.
thats why they set a hide DC of 15 to even become hidden, and have monsters with 27 passive perception.
Is that quote from the playtest hiding rules? I think it's fair to say that the current playtest hiding rule is such obvious BS it'd be a major blunder if it gets printed in a final release, as I highly doubt anyone will use those rules when they aren't modelling hiding as players would understand it at all.
You say its BS because you arent used to it
I say it's BS because it's completely and utterly nonsensical to have hiding be based on invisibility, they're two completely different things; it doesn't model what it's supposed to in the slightest.
At least with dodging a fireball you can argue you managed to shield yourself somehow, or dodged in a way that you ended up roughly in the same place (e.g- by throwing yourself flat on the ground), or maybe you were only on the edge of the radius as it went off (because turns are actually happening simultaneously) etc., but someone being permanently invisible because they crouched behind a pot plant a week ago makes zero sense in the slightest, and it requires enormous work to try to rationalise narratively a mechanic that makes no sense when suddenly a rogue can't be found while standing directly in front of you.
Plus it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist in 5e; when it comes down to it the 5e stealth rules are mostly fine, the basics are all there. The problems that need solving are a) the layout (it should be grouped up better so it's easier to find the complete stealth rules) and b) minor clarifications around how it's supposed to work exactly, as currently parts are a little vague around being hidden from some creatures but not others.
Hiding = invisible isn't really simpler, because it only introduces a whole heap of new, far worse, problems to contend with. It solves a problem that didn't need solving by making everything worse.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
similarly, the master rogue would have avoided detection, shadowing enemies at times waiting for them to move at other times, or they were all asleep and poisioning the pot.
My example was a 5th level rogue, and occurred entirely at midday. There is nothing in your rules interpretation to say they could not walk right up to a pot of soup while it is being served to dozens of people and pour poison into it without being noticed. If stealth makes you Invisible until an NPC (1) decides to make a perceptions check and (2) beats your stealth check, then you can absolutely hide behind a tree 1 mile away from the bandit camp to become "Invisible" by rolling higher than a 15 and then walk 1 mile in broad daylight with no cover and into the camp right into a campfire surrounded by people and pour poison into the pot without being noticed and then back out again. As long as the rogue doesn't talk, cast spells, or make attacks then the rogue can be Invisible all day long, since they can spend the first 10 minutes of the day "Hiding" behind different random object in camp until they roll a Nat 20, and then just keep it up for the rest of the day.
Last I checked the GM asks for a roll. The players don't demand one. "I hide behind a tree where there is no chance of being detected" is not a place where I roll a relevant stealth check. "I sneak up to the pot and try to put poison in it", if the prerequisite for stealth are met go for it, if not then you don't get to roll. Maybe need to create a diversion of some kind first with a deception check of some kind or an illusion spell.
So the issue is the monk can specialize itself for stealth and still be worse than any other class that does the same.
If more defense and more mobility while sneaking makes you worse, the issue is your table, not the class.
They don't have more mobility or defense. Other classes are just as tough, and movement speed is only relevant in combat. Other classes have better climbing, swimming and teleporting giving them better mobility. movement speed is not the only type of mobility and is the least important form of mobility.
During stealth mobility speed is pretty important. It is generally 1/2 speed while being stealthy a monk has a increased base movement and a bonus action dash making them one of the fastest stealth class in the game. Need to cross a large gap of open terrain in a single turn while in stealth, the monk can do it without needing magic. Want to scout out a camp, the monk will do it faster than anyone except maybe the druid. The idea that movement speed only matters during combat is so counter to my play experience I'm kind of baffled by the statement. In my campaigns movement speed during stealth is generally more important than it is in combat.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
new stealth is perception versus stealth, but this may have been a problemm in 5e
From the latest UA
HIDE [ACTION] With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so stealthily, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check. The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a verbal component.
While it doesn't say it outright, I would say that "an enemy finds you" includes "you walk across their field of vision without cover or obscurement". That is to say, your Invisible condition is reliant on maintaining the conditions that allowed the roll in the first place; you don't literally turn invisible.
it says how an enemy finds you, it says the enemy can find you with a perception check
Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.
DMs are free to add extra rules if they want, but they outline how creatures are supposed to find you. once you say how monsters can find you, it would be redundant to say it again one sentence later.
note, that passive perception checks would still apply, if you are using passive rules.
also note the narrative might have some one find you as well. but narrative rarely needs to folllow raw anyway
Except that creates the circumstance where I could literally walk up and wave right in a guard's face and be completely undetected so long as they roll below my Stealth check. When it comes to interacting with the environment, RAW is where the system begins, but not where it ends. If someone sees you, they have found you, and given that you are not required to make a Perception check every time you attempt to see something that is right in front of your face, one can logically infer that the same principle applies here; a Perception check is for seeing something that is not in plain sight, not for determining if you notice someone walking right across your field of vision under adequate light.
i think flaunting one's not-quite-invisibility comes under the Rule of Cool subheading: Hubris, downfall of heroes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Last I checked the GM asks for a roll. The players don't demand one. "I hide behind a tree where there is no chance of being detected" is not a place where I roll a relevant stealth check. "I sneak up to the pot and try to put poison in it", if the prerequisite for stealth are met go for it, if not then you don't get to roll. Maybe need to create a diversion of some kind first with a deception check of some kind or an illusion spell.
Keep in mind that Hide is an Action; that gives the player agency to attempt it at will, within the conditions specifically described for the Action. Technically they do have the right to say they attempt it at any time they can take an Action and meet the conditions on cover or being obscured, at which point the argument can sorta-kinda be made that the condition exists indefinitely. It’s clearly a munchkin argument that runs counter to RAI, but the language is unfortunately vague enough there’s no line to conclusively disprove it short of Rule 0.
Maybe we can start a separate thread to talk about the 1DnD Stealth rules? I'd like to get back to the Monk.
One area of criticism I have for Open Hand is the Wholeness of Body ability, even reduced to a bonus action it doesn't feel worthwhile to use (especially given how much more valuable the Monk's bonus action just became, between the buffs to Monk's Discipline and Heightened Discipline.) I was trying to think of ways to make the ability feel more impactful; one that I thought of was letting it autoheal you the first time you drop to 0 on a given day, or be usable while unconscious/dying. Both would be fluffed as the Open Hand Monk gaining mastery over their own autonomic processes.
Another option was to let them use WhoB to heal other people, but I'm not a fan of this one because it feels too similar to Mercy Monk that will be in the same book. Any suggestions I'm forgetting?
Maybe we can start a separate thread to talk about the 1DnD Stealth rules? I'd like to get back to the Monk.
One area of criticism I have for Open Hand is the Wholeness of Body ability, even reduced to a bonus action it doesn't feel worthwhile to use (especially given how much more valuable the Monk's bonus action just became, between the buffs to Monk's Discipline and Heightened Discipline.) I was trying to think of ways to make the ability feel more impactful; one that I thought of was letting it autoheal you the first time you drop to 0 on a given day, or be usable while unconscious/dying. Both would be fluffed as the Open Hand Monk gaining mastery over their own autonomic processes.
Another option was to let them use WhoB to heal other people, but I'm not a fan of this one because it feels too similar to Mercy Monk that will be in the same book. Any suggestions I'm forgetting?
I suppose one critique of using Wholeness of Body as an auto-revive is you’re then stepping on the toes of Barbarians and I think the new Orcs. Personally I think for its action economy here you either use it alongside regular attacks to maintain staying power, or if you got swamped in the last turn you Disengage as an Action and use your +15 or more to speed to get out of reach before healing. Really, given the variable and ultimately low amount of per-round healing, it’s probably better to just use it in place of a single Bonus Action attack when your health is just low enough that you won’t have overflow or cash it in en mass between encounters. Comparing the two, I think I might actually prefer the original; it took an Action but was a better emergency button mid-combat.
I wouldn't mind DP to give advantage to Athletics checks to jump or Acrobatics checks to... actually what is Acrobatics for?... or something. But Expertise is too much, they're still a Warrior class at the end of the day and now that side of their kit is much stronger.
Acrobatics seems intended mainly for checks where balance is important (but where a Dexterity saving throw isn't more appropriate) but also for movement that is more about being nimble – the examples they give are rolling, flips etc. so I would use acrobatics if a player wants to roll under (or flip over) something while maintaining speed or similar, though I might also allow a more basic vault using Athletics if a character is so inclined.
I think they're left intentionally a bit vague, so I somewhat allow them to be used interchangeably in situations where either is reasonable, for example if scaling a wall you might simply look for handholds and footholds and haul yourself up athletically, but if there's anything to kick off from, you might also argue acrobatics to do more of a parkour manoeuvre. Same for anywhere you might argue distance vs. technique, though in some of these edge cases a DM might could also allow Dexterity (Athletics) instead so a dextrous character isn't penalised by being too rigid on how they're allowed to move.
Definitely another area they really ought to clarify in the rules, because what is athletic versus just basic Strength is often unclear, and with it being the only Strength skill you don't want to undervalue it either, but nor do you want to punish a Dexterity oriented character (especially if the class basically requires it) for being unable to spare anything for a high Strength.
I'd be fully onboard with the ability to gain advantage though, I think it's fair Monks should be able to be good at both Athletics and Acrobatics as standard.
If my interpretation/clarification can helps. Athletics is best used for BRUTEFORCE (who would have guess) checks : running / swimming / fast climbing usually against some external elements of resistance implying usage of strenght to overcome it. Acrobatics is best used for coordination purpose, it can be carefull precise, it somehow includes timing, which can applies to climbing especially going down, or when you have time. its against your own skillset, when you are your own ennemy.
On a personnal note as a climber I would never use athletics check for basic climbing unless jumping high or climbing with speed is in the equation like parkour jumping between 2 wall (fantasy here we go). Climbing actually requires more stamina/good metabolism than strenght but hey who cares. Without coordination tho you do nothing, and with it you gain vastly more options. So dex seems more appropriate with time. Without time you can use strengh, before the stamina kicks in. If this challenging con save are still there. Also climbing tree ... should not always require a check
Monks basically just don't need climbs check reaching the appropriate lvl .. 9 ? Before one could feel a disparity, while another one can argue that they should not necessarily be good climber at start, and at one time a part of their training is to overcome gravity, without at all being good climber too. Being agile (monk 'main' stats) just helps for the general checks (with time). If you want either acrobatics or athletics you can take it or not. I would not give monk other advantage. Climbing is actually more a rogue/ranger thing to me and that last feeling seems more truth to me for taking such decision to give it to a monk.
One area of criticism I have for Open Hand is the Wholeness of Body ability, even reduced to a bonus action it doesn't feel worthwhile to use (especially given how much more valuable the Monk's bonus action just became, between the buffs to Monk's Discipline and Heightened Discipline.) I was trying to think of ways to make the ability feel more impactful; one that I thought of was letting it autoheal you the first time you drop to 0 on a given day, or be usable while unconscious/dying. Both would be fluffed as the Open Hand Monk gaining mastery over their own autonomic processes.
Another option was to let them use WhoB to heal other people, but I'm not a fan of this one because it feels too similar to Mercy Monk that will be in the same book. Any suggestions I'm forgetting?
What if it were usable at the same time as Patient Defence? Make it more of a defensive feature since you'd be able to combine healing with either Disengaging or (hopefully) taking less damage (if you spend the Discipline point as well)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wouldn’t being out in the open negate your stealth anyway? I mean this isn’t Skyrim where a high enough stealth you can punch someone in the face and they don’t see you.
I can imagine your monk being like that episode of Southpark where Cartman thought he was a ghost (or invisible, don’t remember) and he’s crossing a stage naked thinking the crowd doesn’t see him.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
new stealth is perception versus stealth, but this may have been a problemm in 5e
From the latest UA
While it doesn't say it outright, I would say that "an enemy finds you" includes "you walk across their field of vision without cover or obscurement". That is to say, your Invisible condition is reliant on maintaining the conditions that allowed the roll in the first place; you don't literally turn invisible.
it says how an enemy finds you, it says the enemy can find you with a perception check
DMs are free to add extra rules if they want, but they outline how creatures are supposed to find you. once you say how monsters can find you, it would be redundant to say it again one sentence later.
note, that passive perception checks would still apply, if you are using passive rules.
also note the narrative might have some one find you as well. but narrative rarely needs to folllow raw anyway
Except that creates the circumstance where I could literally walk up and wave right in a guard's face and be completely undetected so long as they roll below my Stealth check. When it comes to interacting with the environment, RAW is where the system begins, but not where it ends. If someone sees you, they have found you, and given that you are not required to make a Perception check every time you attempt to see something that is right in front of your face, one can logically infer that the same principle applies here; a Perception check is for seeing something that is not in plain sight, not for determining if you notice someone walking right across your field of vision under adequate light.
RAW says that in order to find you they do perception checks.
what you are doing is changing raw into interpretation, because you don't like the idea they are presenting.
Its fine to disagree with the idea of perception vs stealth as the determiner, but its wrong to reinterpret the words in new ways to fit your definition. Because not all DMs or players will do that, and this is the UA.
If you want them to change it so you can be found by walking around and movement, now is the time to give that feedback.
As to why this change is actually better, is because dnd 5e doesnt have a concept of facing enemies, and field of vision is 360 degrees to as far as the eye can see.
that means effectively, hiding serves no purpose in 5e, and no one can sneak up on anyone. Which goes against the fantasy of sneaking classes, the actual normal world and combat.
by 5e rules, As soon as you leave cover, hiding dissipates, but while you are in cover, you already have all the benefits that hiding offers. This means hiding in 5e has no real use case, and is a waste of an action.
5e stealth/hiding was mess, the solution they chose is to abstract it, much like they abstract vision, and monks evasion, (you are not actually immune to fireball, you dodged it narratively speaking, though you havent strictly moved from your spot)
the current rule isnt saying you danced infront of the guards face, its saying within that 6 second time frame, he didnt notice you, and you stealthily avoided his notice.
Your exact position in 5e at any given moment is in flux. You are at some point in that square in those seconds, but you are also wherever you possibly moved to, and where ever your reaction needed you to be at some point in that 6 second time frame. The whole round is actually happening at almost exactly the same time. its not 6 seconds for each person, and then the next person has 6 seconds. Its just 6 seconds with a ton of things happening, that are really only fully understood after the fact.
basically, the roll determines the outcome, and the DM or player can decided the details of how they avoided detection.
No, this very apparently leads to absolutely ludicrous circumstances.
If this is how you are interpreting the rules, then this is an entirely valid outcome of those rules:
The rogue ducks behind a tree in the middle of a forest, and Hides. They roll a Nat 20 +5+3 for a 28. The then step out from behind that tree and walk 10 minutes down the middle of a road to the bandit camp. The bandits only have a +0-+3 Perception modifier so they are all incapable of detecting the rogue at any time. The rogue walks around completely in the open in broad daylight, and dumps poison into the cooking pot that two of the bandits are currently tending, and right in front of 6 others who are waiting to be served but none of them notice anything. The rogue then walks over to the shooting range where one of the bandits is practicing and walks over and takes the arrows right out of the target in front of them and the bandit doesn't notice them at all, and proceeds to go over to the equipment rack where a large dog is standing guard (+4 Perception + Keen Senses) and takes all of the bandit's weapons without the dog having any idea they are there. Finally they go over to the tent where the Bandit Captain is sitting working at a desk planning their next attack and stands right in the middle of the room and takes the piece of paper the Captain is currently writing on, and the Bandit Captain still doesn't see them.
The rogue then heads back, to the party by walking across an huge open plane where there is no cover at all, and three Rocs (Perception +4) are circling overhead looking for a taste-y meal but because that rogue 2 in-game hours ago rolled a Nat 20 while behind a tree, those Rocs can't see the rogue, and they can walk past just fine. The rogue then returns to the party camp and without speaking to anyone rolls up and goes to sleep. In the morning the rest of the party wakes up and is asking themself where is the Rogue? Did the rogue not come home last night? Because the Rogue is still invisible because none of the conditions for ending it have occurred yet.
Is that quote from the playtest hiding rules? I think it's fair to say that the current playtest hiding rule is such obvious BS it'd be a major blunder if it gets printed in a final release, as I highly doubt anyone will use those rules when they aren't modelling hiding as players would understand it at all.
Same as a lot of people ignore the fact that truesight and see invisibility barely work against invisibility in 5e; sometimes if a rule makes no logical sense, you end up with homebrew by intuition and everyone ends up playing the rule as it makes sense to them, rather than what it actually says.
I think the wording might have slightly changed from your quoted version though, in playtest 8 it only says "an enemy finds you", not "by rolling a Perception check against your Stealth roll" which introduced its own problems (as strictly speaking just trying to find you would end the condition, since it doesn't mention succeeding on a contest or such).
My conclusion thus far is that Wizards of the Coast have no idea how to model stealth and players and DMs are better off just using the only parts of the rules that make sense (e.g- the contested checks, and you can't hide from something that sees you) and just ignore the rest. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You are creating a narrative that doesnt match the dice roll. And ignoring that this is done all the time in 5e
its as valid as saying;
The monk level 15 monk looks into the eyes of the wizard from 5 miles out(rolls a 18 on his dex save), saying i cannot be harmed by your feeble magic. A giant swarm of meteors fly into into him each breaking against his skin, the fire absorbed by his gaze. the monk stands in a completely burnt out city, buildings, houses destroyed, slowly walking towards the mage.
no, thats not the narrative anyone would write. they would say the meteors simply missed him, he dodged out the way of a few and took cover.
You could have the narrative say naked barbarian catches the flaming greatsword in his pectoral muscle (monsters rolls 14 vs barbarian 15 AC) but you dont do that, you come up with a way to explain the roll that makes sense.
similarly, the master rogue would have avoided detection, shadowing enemies at times waiting for them to move at other times, or they were all asleep and poisioning the pot.
you cannot have an explict stealth system and abstract vision system. Either both need to be abstract, or both need to be explicit. They dont want high stealth to be inferior to spells anymore. they dont want hide to be a useless rule. They want players to be able to sneak up on enemies. If you can solve this in a system with 360 vision as far as the eye can see, without an abstraction, share your suggestion.
people have an idea that your position is concrete, and things are happening explicitly in 5e, but they specifically say its not. these rules are framework but not explicit. You arent really stationary in a 5foot space waiting for other people to act, its all simulataneous and contains everything that happened that round. But feel free to complain about it, its a test, it may not go through.
But you should be testing/evaluating it based on what it says, not what you think it should say.
what do you think exactly a 28 stealth represents. keep in mind 25 legendary, and 30 is nearly impossible. You think this person with nearly impossible stealth wold have trouble poisoning a pot with a bunch of people who could barely pay attention to anything? 10 is an easy roll. if they have +0 to stealth they are generally bad at paying attention to their surroundings.
You say its BS because you arent used to it, but you have been fine for years dodging fireballs without moving from a 4 foot square, and seeing things literally behind your head, and 60 feet away, Dodging Greatswords with no armor without moving from a 5 foot square. Abstractions have always been a part of 5e.
thats why they set a hide DC of 15 to even become hidden, and have monsters with 27 passive perception.
I say it's BS because it's completely and utterly nonsensical to have hiding be based on invisibility, they're two completely different things; it doesn't model what it's supposed to in the slightest.
At least with dodging a fireball you can argue you managed to shield yourself somehow, or dodged in a way that you ended up roughly in the same place (e.g- by throwing yourself flat on the ground), or maybe you were only on the edge of the radius as it went off (because turns are actually happening simultaneously) etc., but someone being permanently invisible because they crouched behind a pot plant a week ago makes zero sense in the slightest, and it requires enormous work to try to rationalise narratively a mechanic that makes no sense when suddenly a rogue can't be found while standing directly in front of you.
Plus it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist in 5e; when it comes down to it the 5e stealth rules are mostly fine, the basics are all there. The problems that need solving are a) the layout (it should be grouped up better so it's easier to find the complete stealth rules) and b) minor clarifications around how it's supposed to work exactly, as currently parts are a little vague around being hidden from some creatures but not others.
Hiding = invisible isn't really simpler, because it only introduces a whole heap of new, far worse, problems to contend with. It solves a problem that didn't need solving by making everything worse.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My example was a 5th level rogue, and occurred entirely at midday. There is nothing in your rules interpretation to say they could not walk right up to a pot of soup while it is being served to dozens of people and pour poison into it without being noticed. If stealth makes you Invisible until an NPC (1) decides to make a perceptions check and (2) beats your stealth check, then you can absolutely hide behind a tree 1 mile away from the bandit camp to become "Invisible" by rolling higher than a 15 and then walk 1 mile in broad daylight with no cover and into the camp right into a campfire surrounded by people and pour poison into the pot without being noticed and then back out again. As long as the rogue doesn't talk, cast spells, or make attacks then the rogue can be Invisible all day long, since they can spend the first 10 minutes of the day "Hiding" behind different random object in camp until they roll a Nat 20, and then just keep it up for the rest of the day.
Last I checked the GM asks for a roll. The players don't demand one. "I hide behind a tree where there is no chance of being detected" is not a place where I roll a relevant stealth check. "I sneak up to the pot and try to put poison in it", if the prerequisite for stealth are met go for it, if not then you don't get to roll. Maybe need to create a diversion of some kind first with a deception check of some kind or an illusion spell.
i think flaunting one's not-quite-invisibility comes under the Rule of Cool subheading: Hubris, downfall of heroes.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Keep in mind that Hide is an Action; that gives the player agency to attempt it at will, within the conditions specifically described for the Action. Technically they do have the right to say they attempt it at any time they can take an Action and meet the conditions on cover or being obscured, at which point the argument can sorta-kinda be made that the condition exists indefinitely. It’s clearly a munchkin argument that runs counter to RAI, but the language is unfortunately vague enough there’s no line to conclusively disprove it short of Rule 0.
Maybe we can start a separate thread to talk about the 1DnD Stealth rules? I'd like to get back to the Monk.
One area of criticism I have for Open Hand is the Wholeness of Body ability, even reduced to a bonus action it doesn't feel worthwhile to use (especially given how much more valuable the Monk's bonus action just became, between the buffs to Monk's Discipline and Heightened Discipline.) I was trying to think of ways to make the ability feel more impactful; one that I thought of was letting it autoheal you the first time you drop to 0 on a given day, or be usable while unconscious/dying. Both would be fluffed as the Open Hand Monk gaining mastery over their own autonomic processes.
Another option was to let them use WhoB to heal other people, but I'm not a fan of this one because it feels too similar to Mercy Monk that will be in the same book. Any suggestions I'm forgetting?
The explanation on how u hide adds on how u are found, no direct line of sight its right there.
I suppose one critique of using Wholeness of Body as an auto-revive is you’re then stepping on the toes of Barbarians and I think the new Orcs. Personally I think for its action economy here you either use it alongside regular attacks to maintain staying power, or if you got swamped in the last turn you Disengage as an Action and use your +15 or more to speed to get out of reach before healing. Really, given the variable and ultimately low amount of per-round healing, it’s probably better to just use it in place of a single Bonus Action attack when your health is just low enough that you won’t have overflow or cash it in en mass between encounters. Comparing the two, I think I might actually prefer the original; it took an Action but was a better emergency button mid-combat.
If my interpretation/clarification can helps.
Athletics is best used for BRUTEFORCE (who would have guess) checks : running / swimming / fast climbing usually against some external elements of resistance implying usage of strenght to overcome it.
Acrobatics is best used for coordination purpose, it can be carefull precise, it somehow includes timing, which can applies to climbing especially going down, or when you have time. its against your own skillset, when you are your own ennemy.
On a personnal note as a climber I would never use athletics check for basic climbing unless jumping high or climbing with speed is in the equation like parkour jumping between 2 wall (fantasy here we go).
Climbing actually requires more stamina/good metabolism than strenght but hey who cares. Without coordination tho you do nothing, and with it you gain vastly more options. So dex seems more appropriate with time.
Without time you can use strengh, before the stamina kicks in. If this challenging con save are still there.
Also climbing tree ... should not always require a check
Monks basically just don't need climbs check reaching the appropriate lvl .. 9 ?
Before one could feel a disparity, while another one can argue that they should not necessarily be good climber at start, and at one time a part of their training is to overcome gravity, without at all being good climber too.
Being agile (monk 'main' stats) just helps for the general checks (with time). If you want either acrobatics or athletics you can take it or not. I would not give monk other advantage.
Climbing is actually more a rogue/ranger thing to me and that last feeling seems more truth to me for taking such decision to give it to a monk.
What if it were usable at the same time as Patient Defence? Make it more of a defensive feature since you'd be able to combine healing with either Disengaging or (hopefully) taking less damage (if you spend the Discipline point as well)?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.