|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 8:21PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
I agree that the ambusher feat should allow to make a sheath check as part of the attack so you don't have to burn a turn hiding. Or even hide as part of your movement. So it could be say the rogue moves out of hiding and then moves 10 feet, attacks with advantage, moves another 10 feat and hides by scarficing his last five feet.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 9:31PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Second sentence under the advantage/disadvantage section in the how to play document.
"An enemy might be unaware of your attack"
If i'm looking around for the fighter and don't see him, he's going to get the jump on me if he shoots me with a crossbow from wherever he's hiding. However, if i'm looking around for him, and he suddenly steps out from behind a tree before walking over to swing a sword at me, i'm going to be prepared for it.
You haven't quoted a rule, you have quote a statement, one containing the word "might" at that. Nevertheless, I agree that you make your point fairly well. Unfortunately, I can't seem to be convinced of the sense of it.
If the fighter steps out from behind a tree, moves to you and attacks, all within his turn (6 seconds), then, I'm sorry, in my book, he's ambushed you and has advantage. We don't need rules and feats to tell us what an ambush is, who can do it, whether or not it involves movement and what the outcome should be.
Yes, we do need rules for this. I say that, in the above example, the fighter has broken cover and no longer has advantage. You say the opposite. The rules say the official way of doing things (no longer having cover means no longer being hidden) and then we have the freedom to make any "house rule" we want 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 10:59PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
The stealth rules state that if either party moves to a position where the hidden person is in clear sight they loose their hidden status. So the ruling that a character coming out of cover into the open whilst maintaining hidden is a house rule.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 11:39PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
In the rules on stealth, from the "How to Play" document, it states: When you attack a creature from which you are hidden, you have advantage on that attack.
Compare this to the rogue's ambusher feat:
When you start your turn hidden from a creature, you have advantage on your first attack against that creature during your turn.
The difference here is that the ambusher feat allows you to move and make an attack, as opposed to making an attack from hiding.
Yes, I understand this. I just don't think it is the way it should be. I see no compelling reason why a character starting from a hidden position shouldn't gain advantage from ambushing an enemy even if they do move. This isn't a matter of my not understanding the rules, it is a matter of my disagreeing with them.
This is a playtest, yes? They've asked for our opinions, yes? They've asked for our feedback. In my mind this doesn't equate to asking me to agree with their rules, it is asking me to question them.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:06AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
The stealth rules state that if either party moves to a position where the hidden person is in clear sight they loose their hidden status. So the ruling that a character coming out of cover into the open whilst maintaining hidden is a house rule.
No. It isn't a house rule, a house rule is something that is instituted in a personal game that is different from the final published rules. What this is is a suggestion that the designers should reconsider the rules that they have presented for this situation thus far. When playtesting it is important to playtest with the rules as they are written, only then can you make a judgment about them to feedback.
This is feedback, not a houserule.
Tightly ruling stealth to state that you cannot maintain advantage if you move is failing to take into account the multitudinous situations you might create when ambushing an enemy. Rules create unintended consequences.
Say the PCs have spotted a patrol of orcs approaching and make themselves hidden with the intention to ambush. They allow the orcs to pass their hidden positions then emerge to attack them from behind. Why shouldn't the fighter be able to move say the 5 or 10 feet he needs to attack the nearest orc and still get advantage for the attack? The answer to this particular question should not be, "because it says so in the rules" neither should it be, "because only rogues can do that." Furthermore, if I allow the fighter advantage on this attack, the rogue player is not going to be happy because she thinks that only she should be able to do this. After all, it says so on her character sheet.
This is why I currently DM Basic Fantasy. It doesn't try to strictly rule for such situations.
This is about rewarding my players' for the actions of their characters where they show ingenuity. They ambush an unaware enemy, they get advantage on their first turn. This seems perfectly good to me and it shouldn't be stamped on by the rules stating whether or not they can move.
Houseruling this would be problematic, because of the Rogue's Ambusher feat. I either have to change that too or else I'm forced into playing this point the way the designers want.
Before anyone points them out, I am also aware of the rules for surprise.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:11AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2004
|
Second sentence under the advantage/disadvantage section in the how to play document.
"An enemy might be unaware of your attack"
If i'm looking around for the fighter and don't see him, he's going to get the jump on me if he shoots me with a crossbow from wherever he's hiding. However, if i'm looking around for him, and he suddenly steps out from behind a tree before walking over to swing a sword at me, i'm going to be prepared for it.
You haven't quoted a rule, you have quote a statement, one containing the word "might" at that. Nevertheless, I agree that you make your point fairly well. Unfortunately, I can't seem to be convinced of the sense of it.
If the fighter steps out from behind a tree, moves to you and attacks, all within his turn (6 seconds), then, I'm sorry, in my book, he's ambushed you and has advantage. We don't need rules and feats to tell us what an ambush is, who can do it, whether or not it involves movement and what the outcome should be.
Yes, we do need rules for this. I say that, in the above example, the fighter has broken cover and no longer has advantage. You say the opposite. The rules say the official way of doing things and then we have the freedom to make any "house rule" we want
These aren't the rules. These are the playtest rules. These are the proposed rules, which they have stated are not set in stone and could change if feedback warrants it. This is my feedback. If my feedback is a lone voice in the dark then I don't expect it to have any impact, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't give it. Houseruling is something that is done to the final published rules, not to playtests.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:11AM
#17
|
|
|
I can't really add anything to this thread. It just makes...logical sense that someone attacking FROM hidden would get advantage. But someone moving out of hidden then making an attack would give the enemy a chance to notice him. Especially with D&Ds assumption that units are aware of all sides of them during a combat.
Just plain logic lol.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:37AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2008
|
Say the PCs have spotted a patrol of orcs approaching and make themselves hidden with the intention to ambush. They allow the orcs to pass their hidden positions then emerge to attack them from behind. Why shouldn't the fighter be able to move say the 5 or 10 feet he needs to attack the nearest orc and still get advantage for the attack? The answer to this particular question should not be, "because it says so in the rules" neither should it be, "because only rogues can do that." Furthermore, if I allow the fighter advantage on this attack, the rogue player is not going to be happy because she thinks that only she should be able to do this. After all, it says so on her character sheet.
Of course, there is a difference between the FIRST attack and further attacks.
A monster that is unaware can be snuck up on from someone behind them. Once combat starts, initiative is rolled, and the fight is 'on' ... the situation is very different.
Allowing a PC to get a single attack with advantage under a specific situation is different from giving them advantage in EVERY situation. With the rogue, they have the ability to get that advantage EVERY time, instead of in specific situations.
And, in your situation, the fighter is remaining hidden. BECAUSE the fight hasn't started yet, the enemies don't know the PCs are behind them. So, that is a special case called out in the stealth rules that even if you are 'out in the open', you can sneak up behind someone if they aren't looking in your direction. This is different than coming out of hiding and closing with a combatant who knows he is under attack and is actively looking all over the place for where the next attack is coming.
Basically check out the part about Being Detected. By your description, they started out hidden, and then lost the conditions to remain hidden, which would mean they were automatically spotted as long as a creature is looking in your direction.
So, even though there is a special feat that allows someone to REPEATEDLY pull off a trick where they move and get advantage should not prevent you from allowing everyone to do it once in a while, especially since, that trick is only going to work once before the fight starts, while the rogue can basically hide/then move and attack every other turn for the entire fight. In 4e parlance ... one is an encounter power (that has a hard to meet condition), but the rogue can do it at-will.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:01PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Say the PCs have spotted a patrol of orcs approaching and make themselves hidden with the intention to ambush. They allow the orcs to pass their hidden positions then emerge to attack them from behind. Why shouldn't the fighter be able to move say the 5 or 10 feet he needs to attack the nearest orc and still get advantage for the attack? The answer to this particular question should not be, "because it says so in the rules" neither should it be, "because only rogues can do that." Furthermore, if I allow the fighter advantage on this attack, the rogue player is not going to be happy because she thinks that only she should be able to do this. After all, it says so on her character sheet.
Even once the ambushing figher is out in the open, that doesn't mean that he/she is automatically detected. The patrol of orcs' footfalls would be making noise, as would their gear. Weapons rattle against armor, patchwork armor jingles. Also, the Rogue has to make a Stealth roll to hide but can move & attack with Advantage (and of course Sneak Attack). Maybe it would be fair and Eqitable to have the Fighter make an ambush check to get that Advantage... alternately, the last orc in the line could get a Percrption check to see if he is aware of the commencing attack. I would prefer to have the player roll as they are the heroes
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:19PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I think the problem with a lot of the counter posts is that you are all arguing the examples given and not the original post.
Let's try this:
Example one: The party is hiding on tree branches that overhang the road waiting for the bandits to stop a caravan. The party is hidden. The caravan approaches and the bandits arrive. The party drops down from the branches and all have advantage and surprise on the bandits. Are there any problems with giving the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard advantage in this situation?
Example two: The party is hiding to the side of a cave entrance where they know kobold sentries are patroling back and forth across a chasm. They wait for the three Kobolds to walk out of the cave and jump out to attack them. Are there any problems with giving the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard advantage in this situation?
The OP asked if we are going to give ambush advantage to all characters, what makes the lurker feat special? I think the answer is simply nothing. The Rogue has been relegated back to his old days of wasting a round hiding and then attack. Waste a round picking a lock, and then attack. Insert Improv action here, then attack. Rogues that try to fight without their Backstab aren't a whole lot of fun to play.
It's as though the designers were trying to hamstring the rogues ability to do a whole lot of damage by making it so that he could only do it every other turn. And honestly, with a rogues AC being exactly the same as a fighters, he might as well pick up a bigger weapon and only use his Backstab as the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
|
