So I was reading this comment on the hiding question and then looking at the basic rules, and it's unclear to me if there is any real difference to hiding versus just making a stealth check.
> When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
It seems to me that "hiding" is just what we call a stealth attempt when you additionally have cover, and that it doesn't confer any independent benefits. Which actually makes sense.
Look at the paragraph after "sleight of hand" titled "stealth"
Hiding and "stealth" checks are two different things. I think Hiding is an optional rule to stealth.
" However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."
(as in no class features that reference it), which is probably why there isn't much on it. When the PHB rogue comes out I'll expect far more fleshed out rules re: stealth and hiding as the playtest had some rogues that used hide way more often
yeah, they always have a bonus action to hide, disengage or dash
tbh though, from what we've seen, hiding requires invisibility/total cover/ complete break of LOS, so just getting away is enough to get advantage (which is what the rogue cares about)
theoretically it shouldn't be that hard to write the rules in such a way that you could do this
@GMNoob But in games death is almost always less-than-final
And in the real world, we have terms like "clinically dead" because we don't actually understand completely what death is. People come back from being clinically dead all the time.
I have to agree here. It's very, very hard to take pretty basic English concepts and make them into hard and fast legalistic rules that people can't find some alternate definition for - it's the nature of the English language. This is a place where they deliberately punt and say "hidden, dumbasses," and expect you to do the right thing. I would note that everyone in all this "rules of hidden club" is omitting the careful explicit placement of GM fiat they put in the stealth rules... "However, under certain
It's like in Pathfinder when people were complaining to the devs about "well but how do we know that HIDDEN means you can make a SNEAK attack..." "Bah," they said in response.
Yep. Yay lawyers. I very much like that they're going a bit more back to the D&D Basic approach without having to turn everything into overwroght codewords.
[Not having been alive in the 80s or meaningfully so before 2000] I feel like we have a very legalistic approach to gaming now (perhaps caused by the popularity of mechanics-heavy computer games).
The more that the rules pickily deviate from common sense in fiction, the less accessible they are to new players/casual players. What you're seeing is the effect of most games being played by long-time gamers, who of course want to tinker and make everything perfect - and so love coming up with games a new gamer would find horrific
I don't think it's "these kids nowadays want their legalistic rules," I think "it's the people who have been gaming 20 years that demand it"
I disagree, having a kid and being around kids. Sure, computer games are legalistic - they have to be! But what are all the kids nowadays doing to scratch that similar-to-RP itch? They're freeform roleplaying on forums, on Instagram, they're writing fanfic/creepypastas/whatever.
If D&D were smart, they'd try to grab the portion of the market that isn't competing with huge video game companies. There is loads of internally focused activity out there but it seems sub rosa because there is no meaningful products addressed to it.
@mxyzplk Right this is kind of my second part, that computers are better at being computers so trying to make a legalistic game is sort of a doomed folly.
When D&D came out - if you "looked around" you'd say "well there's wargaming, and board games, and poker and other old school card games - all of which are 100% rule bound - that must be what people want!"
But instead they were all waiting for something to unlock 'the power of your imagination,' as the old ads said
He, yeah, from the same point of view that "hey, my 20 person company will now compete with the iPhone! Money!" makes sense
Fact is that most people that buy loads of books are GMs, or at least some of the time. In my large extended gaming group here, the "player only" people own the Pathfinder core rulebook and that's it. The ones that subscribe and get more are at least occasional GMs.
there's not a lot of choices really. I'd have to say "none of them" unfortunately, I'm not a fan of that art style. It's muddy, all of them look like you're watchign through fog or static.
I assume he means the various 5e product covers for announced products as currently on ENWorld etc.
Not very leap-off-the-shelf. The more stylized, bright colors of Elmore worked well for that with Basic. If I were them I'd go a little more stylized with it, not quite to the anime level but more that direction than "Dutch old master who didn't have time to finish" which is what these say to me
Are there any online sites in which you can look for people that are looking to play in an online play-by-chat RPG Campaign?
I'm thinking of running a Pathfinder campaign for Skype (text only) and I don't have a group of players.
@SolidusVerum unfortunately I haven't used it yet. Its been a while since I've played online, the last time, we used a product called table Top Forge, but those guys joined up with Roll20. It was a good product for a beta, so I feel comfortable recommending Roll20.net
@SolidusVerum cool. Well, if you're interested in some light reading, the first pass of final rules for 5th edition D&D are available online for free. media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/DnDBasicRules.pdf
@waxeagle see I would love to get involved in an intense campaign and learn all of the rules but unfortunately I simply don't have the time to invest into an intensely technical game. All I can really handle right now is showing up and and blindly role-playing.
It is a front-heavy system with a lot of effort going into character generation. When I ran it, I usually had a simple pre-made character for new players to use while they got used to the system.
How did you choose 3.5?
(That said, 3.5 was the first system for me, and for many of my players, so its front-heavy style is not an insurmountable obstacle.)
Lately I've been using Fate Accelerated or Roll for Shoes to introduce people to RPGs; they're better for getting into the game itself right away, because character creation isn't its own minigame (in RFS, character creation is literally "name your character").
@Metool - Material from any of the Wizards of the Coast splat books are allowed except for Book of Nine Swords. - No homebrew or pathfinder races/classes will be permitted.
@Metool I appreciate the suggestion but I just checked to see if there already was one and unfortunately there is. I could play another but I would prefer to not step on any toes.
I'd advise against a druid unless you have someone supporting you as you play; they're one of the most option-heavy classes in the game, and that can lead to choice paralysis at first.
They're very powerful, but in 3.5 "power" equates directly to "choices," and "choices" correlates closely with "more bookkeeping and subsets of rules to keep track of."
Are there any classes that are good at building things? Artisans, craftsmen, technicians, engineers, etc.
a gm prompt is as follows "- Anything that blends fantasy with the old west. Dueling wizards at high noon, not-quite-human saloon girls, etc. Be creative! ... - Artisans, craftsmen, everyday people of the wild west"
That is to say I know that there aren't any classes that are actually labeled as such, but are there any classes that are more apt to doing so than others?
[squint] You could go for Warlock (he learns to make magic items as he levels up) or Expert (a very underpowered class, but if the GM supports the playstyle it could be fun; I had a player who ran one successfully).
Or you could be a Fighter or Ranger who puts some skill points into craft but mechanically focuses on fighting.
That's probably the right stuff, but fair warning: it's technically not a legal publication. Some of the D&D system is published under the Open Gaming License and some of it isn't. The SRD walks the line, but dndtools.eu doesn't.
In addition, 4ed removes a lot of items from the Combat as War gamer’s bag of tricks and it’s much harder to rat**** the opposition with 4ed powers than 1ed spells, since they’re specifically written to be resistant to be used for rat****ing
@zespri It's not that any one power is written to be specifically resistant to being able to screw your opponent over, it's that all powers are written in such a way that it's hard to screw people with them.
For example, in 3.5, you can use Scry and Die tactics where you spend some time figuring out exactly where your enemy sleeps, and then teleport in to murder him when he least suspects it.
Or you can use Dominate Person, which is one of the many, many, "save or your adventuring career is over" spells.
In 4e, powers are built in such a way that one wrong move, or one round of combat, isn't going to totally ruin you.
4e powers are designed to do some damage, and maybe a temporary status effect or temporary buff. Many 3.5 spells are designed to kill or permanently debuff you.
Not to say that you can't kill someone with 4e powers, only that it's difficult to kill an on-level enemy with a single power, where it's pretty easy to do that in 3.5.
Are there any online sites in which you can look for people that are looking to play in an online play-by-chat RPG Campaign?
I'm thinking of running a Pathfinder campaign for Skype (text only) and I don't have a group of players.
