Common rules mistakes -- a growing list

[Dalebert]

Help me compile a list of commonly mis-understood or mis-remembered rules. If you post a good one, I'll edit the OP to include it. Then this thread can become a go-to source for people to read to have a better understanding of the rules.

R 1 Assassin's auto-crit feature: It takes more than acting before the creature. You actually have to gain surprise which means attacking before the creature knows they are threatened by ANY enemies.

R 2 You CAN cast two full spells in a round. The specific ban has to do with bonus action spells. Any time you cast a spell as a bonus action, the only other spell you can cast that turn is a cantrip with a casting time of one action. Action Surge to cast two full spells is fine. Spell as a reaction and another full spell as an action is also fine.

R 3 If you die, you become unattuned to all magic items. Keep that in mind when you get revivified on the battle field!

[TrinculoLives]

You can only take an attack of opportunity against a creature that you can see.

Edit: to clarify, if a creature is invisible it does not provoke attacks of opportunity, nor can a creature that is blinded or that cannot see make an attack of opportunity.

[Dudewithknives]

Mage Slayer feat does not give you an Opportunity Attack, it gives you a reaction attack, so whatever spell that triggered the feat gets to happen first.

Dissonant Whispers does not make them USE their movement to move, it makes them move their movement as a reaction, which is why it provokes Opportunity Attacks.

Disintegrate will destroy a force cage.

Standing up from prone if not moving, it is using their movement, so it does not trigger effects because of moving.

[Kane0]

The stealth rules. Ugh.

Advantage and Disadvantage and how they interact with each other.

The timing of reactions.

Material spell components with a cost aren't single use unless specified

Forced movement and opportunity attacks

[Tetrasodium]

Warcaster does not give you an Opportunity Attack, it lets you cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action that targets only that creature using your reaction instead of the AoO. This is important because abilities that trigger when you make an AoO don't trigger unless your gm is really nice.

[TripleD]

You have an jump distance equal to your strength score with a running start, half if not. Barring exceptional circumstances, you don't need to roll an athletics check most of the time.

[War_lord]

Ability rolls are a big one. You don't need to call for a roll for things that have no reasonable chance of failing.

[Foxhound438]

extra attack doesn't apply if you prepare an action

moving within a creature's range does not provoke AoO, moving out of range does

forgetting that multi-classing has a stat minimum, both in and out (not super common, but it comes up from time to time)

spell progression in multi-classing

heavy armor master does not, in fact, apply to magical sources of BPS damage (it probably should though)

attack/ability check/save roll differentiation

THP stacking (it basically just doesn't)

incapacitation does not in itself prevent you from moving

dual wielding is a viable build ever #zing

[Foxhound438]

Ability rolls are a big one. You don't need to call for a roll for things that have no reasonable chance of failing.

"I tie my shoes then"

"okay, make a dex check"

"fu- fine, whatever... 18."

"sorry, the DC was 20. you tie your hands together on accident and are restrained"

[tkuremento]

"I tie my shoes then"

"okay, make a dex check"

"fu- fine, whatever... 18."

"sorry, the DC was 20. you tie your hands together on accident and are restrained"

Reminds me of the time I made a check--I forget the exact wording and reason--but instead of thinking a statuette of a goddess was stolen I thought the actual goddess was stolen.

[bid]

Custom backgrounds are not an optional rule. Feats and MC are.
Everything in the Classes chapter uses class level, since it assumes you don't MC.
MC requirements are the same, going out or going in.
You apply the same damage to everything (AoE and each magic missile).
The difference between "hit with a melee weapon" and "use the attack action".
The difference between "use your reaction" and "attack of opportunity".
You can delay your lucky roll (or BI, SD) until *after* you've rolled badly.

[Naanomi]

There is a difference between a weapon attack and an attack with a weapon; and both matter at different times

[Dalebert]

I just realized it's going to be quite a task to constantly vet the suggestions and update the OP. There are SO many already.

Well, the thread itself is still a list.

[Pex]

Dragonborn do not have darkvision.

Being grappled does not prevent you from making an attack. There is no penalty nor disadvantage to the roll.

A Natural 1 on a skill/ability check is not an autofail.

5E works perfectly fine with magic items. They do exist in the game, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with PCs having them.

5E works perfectly fine with a 1st level character having an 18 in an ability score. Point Buy is the popular variant but not the absolute rule.

[some guy]

Casting spells with a casting time longer than a round takes up concentration, this includes rituals.

When you can sneak attack because your target has an enemy nearby, it doesn't grant advantage. (not sure if this is common, or just that one player in my group)

[Arial Black]

For saving throws a nat 1 is not an auto fail, nor is a nat 20 an auto success. This is a change from previous editions.

[Giant2005]

Unless either the target or the attacker have the ability to see through it, the Darkness spell does not impose advantage nor disadvantage to either side. More specifically, it imposes both, yet the disadvantage for attacking while blind is cancelled out by the advantage gained by attacking a blind target.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

'Round' and 'Turn' are not the same thing.

[spartan_ah]

BB and GFB do not use the attack action but the spell casting action.
ritual is 10 minutes plus the casting time and not 10 minutes.

[Misterwhisper]

BB and GFB do not use the attack action but the spell casting action.
ritual is 10 minutes plus the casting time and not 10 minutes.

To add to point 1:

BB and GFB use the spell casting action but they make a melee attack as normal using the appropriate physical stat for the attack roll and damage, not the casting stat of the spell.

[Geodude6]

dual wielding is a viable build ever #zing

It might not deal as much damage as GWM but it's not unviable.

[mcsillas]

The stealth rules. Ugh.

Advantage and Disadvantage and how they interact with each other.

The timing of reactions.

Material spell components with a cost aren't single use unless specified

Forced movement and opportunity attacks

Stealth Guide:

//olddungeonmaster.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/dd-5e-stealth-and-hiding/

[Dalebert]

5E works perfectly fine with magic items. They do exist in the game, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with PCs having them.

5E works perfectly fine with a 1st level character having an 18 in an ability score. Point Buy is the popular variant but not the absolute rule.

How are those rules mistakes?

"That's just like, your opinion, man." -Lebowsky

[mgshamster]

How are those rules mistakes?

"That's just like, your opinion, man." -Lebowsky

It's not a specific rule, but more of a "If you think the rules suggest this edition is meant for low power play, and that having a higher power game will somehow 'break' the game, then you've read the gist of the rules wrong."

He is right, though. Having magic items and high stats at low level won't break the game. It'll just change the dynamics of the game. The game is viable either way.

[Naanomi]

He is right, though. Having magic items and high stats at low level won't break the game. It'll just change the dynamics of the game. The game is viable either way.
Although more than just a few items per person means you need to take it into consideration for CR decisions

[mgshamster]

Although more than just a few items per person means you need to take it into consideration for CR decisions

Indeed. I had to adjust my encounters for the load of magic items (and other support) my players had. I ended up treating it like a level adjustment and calculated encounter XP as if they were three levels higher. It worked out rather well for us.

To me, having lots of magic items and really high stats is kind of like using the Heroic Rest Variant. It just increases the power level and makes the game a little less gritty.

5e can handle it either way.

[Pex]

How are those rules mistakes?

"That's just like, your opinion, man." -Lebowsky

Too many times have I read people declare 5E was not created with magic items or dice rolling for ability scores in mind, completely ignoring the fact that magic items are in the DMG, random treasure tables for them exist as an option if the DM doesn't want to bother choosing them on his own, some monsters are resistant or immune to non-magic weapons, and that Point Buy is listed as a variant.

[Matticusrex]

An invisible creature's location is known unless it takes the hide action or produces no sound.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Using inspiration to roll post-facto is suggested in the DMG and isn't even a variant, meaning it can be implemented by an AL DM.

[BiPolar]

Using inspiration to roll post-facto is suggested in the DMG and isn't even a variant, meaning it can be implemented by an AL DM.

Really? Goddamn. You got a page for that?

[Zene]

"I hold my action"
and
"Make an athletics check to see if you can lift that object, because it's heavy"
and
"He can't AoO, he's prone"

[furby076]

Help me compile a list of commonly mis-understood or mis-remembered rules. If you post a good one, I'll edit the OP to include it. Then this thread can become a go-to source for people to read to have a better understanding of the rules.


Can people include source of these facts? Could be page number in a book, or link to twitter response from dnd staff, etc.

This will help prevent debates, ensure the poster verified their comments, and allow players to show this to their group.

Also, like the raw thread, number your rules...so r1, r2, r3, r4, etc. People can then reference a rule if its wrong

And please recommend people not use acronyms. Not everyone knows them...thp? Never heard of it.

People need to say more than "this rule is misunderstood "..... explain the rule and why it's misunderstood

[Kane0]

There isn't a 'delay turn' option in combat. You spend your turn, ready an action or miss out.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Ability rolls are a big one. You don't need to call for a roll for things that have no reasonable chance of failing.

Also, there's no mechanism by which holders of certain class levels, nor backgrounds, nor proficiencies, own certain ability checks or get DC discounts on them.

Mirror image doesn't interact with spells that do not involve attack rolls.

Insert various other issues with 30-page threads devoted to them.


Really? Goddamn. You got a page for that?

P240, says "consider allowing" for heroic campaigns. I don't know how AL works, but to me that implies it's not usually allowed.

My group does that for failed saves that have someone dropping or dying, though, when inspiration was obviously overlooked.

[ProphetSword]

I find that rogues are often played wrong. Here's a whole bunch about the rogue class in general:

Rogues can only apply sneak attack damage once per turn. However, they can apply sneak attack damage multiple times in a round if conditions allow (for example, taking an opportunity attack on someone else's turn).

Rogues can sneak attack if they don't have disadvantage, are using a light or ranged weapon and they meet one of the following two conditions: They have advantage against their target or their target is within 5' of one of their allies.

When a rogue gets a critical hit and is eligible for sneak attack, the sneak attack dice are also doubled along with the weapon die. The attribute bonus is not doubled and is only added to the total once.

The rogue can choose to not do sneak attack damage. They can choose which attack gets the sneak attack damage if they are striking with multiple weapons.

If a rogue uses their bonus action to attack (when using two weapon fighting, for example), they cannot still use the bonus action for their Cunning Action; because they have already used their bonus action.

If an enemy has a clear line of sight to you, you cannot hide from them (barring a specific rule, item or spell that trumps the general rule and makes it possible).

[Dalebert]

Rogues can sneak attack if they don't have disadvantage, are using a light or ranged weapon and...

The weapon has to be ranged or finesse; not light.

[Zalabim]

You only add, multiply, or divide your proficiency bonus once to any ability check, attack roll, or saving throw. Mostly shows up on ability checks when people think that the new expertise-alike stacks with rogue/bard expertise and start talking about huge skill bonuses.

You can only use one calculation for AC at a time. Bonuses usually stack, though you still have to obey the errata'd stacking rules. Mostly comes up when a new AC formula class feature shows up, like Stone Sorcerer and Monk.

If you fail to hit the target's AC, your attack misses and does no damage nor has any effect (typically). If you successfully hit the saving throw DC you reduce the harm you take, but may not prevent it all. If you fail to meet the DC for an ability check, you make no progress or make progress combined with a setback. Typically. Making no progress and suffering a setback would not be typical.

[Theodoxus]

Rogues can only apply sneak attack damage once per turn. However, they can apply sneak attack damage multiple times in a round if conditions allow (for example, taking an opportunity attack on someone else's turn).

If by multiple, you mean exactly two, max. You can sneak on your turn, and you can sneak as part of a reaction on someone else's turn: an Opportunity Attack, having Commander's Strike used on you, etc.

@OP my group is old school players who have a really hard time dropping prior edition abilities. We have all tried 5 foot moves, delaying an action, being overly tactical in movement to avoid OAs for non-existent-in-5E reasons... The most common rules mistake we make is not forgetting to drop preconceived notions and play as the 5E rules are written, not how we wish they were or cramming old ideas into the new.

My mantra when first learning the ruleset (I'm the 'explorer' in the group, always adopting first to new things) was "This is a new game, learn the rules, not the assumption".

[NNescio]

If by multiple, you mean exactly two, max. You can sneak on your turn, and you can sneak as part of a reaction on someone else's turn: an Opportunity Attack, having Commander's Strike used on you, etc.

High level (17+) Thieves can take two turns during the first round of combat, letting them potentially SA up to four times on the first round.

If UA is on the table, it also opens up a few ways to get attacks out-of-turn without using reaction like via the Tunnel Fighting fighting style.

[ThePolarBear]

If by multiple, you mean exactly two, max.

This is the most common rule mistake. Applying a specific situation to a general rule (no matter how common said specific situation is) and passing it as a rule. I'm sorry for using you Theodoxus as an example, but it just happened to be right on time for the example.

The rule only limits the amount of Sneak Attacks in a turn. The normal situation is that a Rogue can only have a single reaction to trigger Sneak Attack damage out of his turn. This leads to the Rogue being able to normally deal Sneak Attack damage twice a round.
However there are already in UA some abilities (Tunnel Fighter) that break said general rule, causing a Rogue that has said abilities to potentially go over the supposed "max" amount of Sneak Attack damage occurrences in a single round.

Rogues usually only get at max up to 2 Sneak Attacks per round, but that's not a rule - it is the result of a series of rules that do not always apply as we expect to.
The rule specifically tells us that the limit is "once per turn". As long as that requirement (and all the others) are met, there's no cap on how many per round, no matter how you gain access to those instances.

Tl;dr Most common mistake is taking a set of specific occurrences as a rule and pass that "knowledge" to others in a way that's actually incorrect, propagating the error.

Edit: Well, ninja'd

[GloatingSwine]

Reminds me of the time I made a check--I forget the exact wording and reason--but instead of thinking a statuette of a goddess was stolen I thought the actual goddess was stolen.

I could see that being a Language check if someone was explaining to you what had happened in a language you didn't quite understand.

[ProphetSword]

The weapon has to be ranged or finesse; not light.

Whoops! We all make mistakes!

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Theodoxus]

High level (17+) Thieves can take two turns during the first round of combat, letting them potentially SA up to four times on the first round.

If UA is on the table, it also opens up a few ways to get attacks out-of-turn without using reaction like via the Tunnel Fighting fighting style.


This is the most common rule mistake. Applying a specific situation to a general rule (no matter how common said specific situation is) and passing it as a rule. I'm sorry for using you Theodoxus as an example, but it just happened to be right on time for the example.

The rule only limits the amount of Sneak Attacks in a turn. The normal situation is that a Rogue can only have a single reaction to trigger Sneak Attack damage out of his turn. This leads to the Rogue being able to normally deal Sneak Attack damage twice a round.
However there are already in UA some abilities (Tunnel Fighter) that break said general rule, causing a Rogue that has said abilities to potentially go over the supposed "max" amount of Sneak Attack damage occurrences in a single round.

Rogues usually only get at max up to 2 Sneak Attacks per round, but that's not a rule - it is the result of a series of rules that do not always apply as we expect to.
The rule specifically tells us that the limit is "once per turn". As long as that requirement (and all the others) are met, there's no cap on how many per round, no matter how you gain access to those instances.

Tl;dr Most common mistake is taking a set of specific occurrences as a rule and pass that "knowledge" to others in a way that's actually incorrect, propagating the error.

Edit: Well, ninja'd

So, your refutation is based on an ability usable 1/encounter at a level few see in actual play, on a archetype even fewer use... and UA material, known to be overtuned and only usable for playtesting until said overtuning can be reined in...

Ok, I guess for the Thief, you're correct. Once they hit 17th level, they can actually have 3 sneak attacks in a round. Once a combat. Ooh, caught me.

For UA? Uh uh - we're talking common rules mistakes, not common UA playtest material mistakes. That's like slapping someone's hand for bringing some obsolete rule from the 3rd iteration of D&D Next that no longer exists. You might use the broken multiple OAs provided by some UA abilities at your table, but that doesn't make it RAW. Which should be the underlying implication. Otherwise I'd say "Well, at my table, we removed the restriction on Reaction and Bonus Actions - you can take as many of either as you have Dex Mod." Now we're just moving into uncharted territory....

[lperkins2]

When you can sneak attack because your target has an enemy nearby, it doesn't grant advantage. (not sure if this is common, or just that one player in my group)

There is an optional rule in the DMG for flanking, which applies anytime the target has an enemy on 2 sides of it (how it maps to battle squares is explained in the DMG). This gives advantage to the attacker, not just for rogues.

[Syll]

So, your refutation is based on an ability usable 1/encounter at a level few see in actual play, on a archetype even fewer use... and UA material, known to be overtuned and only usable for playtesting until said overtuning can be reined in...

Ok, I guess for the Thief, you're correct. Once they hit 17th level, they can actually have 3 sneak attacks in a round. Once a combat. Ooh, caught me.

For UA? Uh uh - we're talking common rules mistakes, not common UA playtest material mistakes. That's like slapping someone's hand for bringing some obsolete rule from the 3rd iteration of D&D Next that no longer exists. You might use the broken multiple OAs provided by some UA abilities at your table, but that doesn't make it RAW. Which should be the underlying implication. Otherwise I'd say "Well, at my table, we removed the restriction on Reaction and Bonus Actions - you can take as many of either as you have Dex Mod." Now we're just moving into uncharted territory....

a) the infrequency of the occurrence doesn't change the fact that 'exactly two, max' is wrong.

b) Sneak Attack is not limited to a # of times per round. That's RAW. Stating 'exactly two, max' is therefore wrong, regardless of your action economy (or lack thereof).

[Zalabim]

So, your refutation is based on an ability usable 1/encounter at a level few see in actual play, on a archetype even fewer use... and UA material, known to be overtuned and only usable for playtesting until said overtuning can be reined in...
There's also the Marking variant combat rule in the DMG that would have this effect too. The refutation is that the ability is "once per turn...", and not "twice per round, max."

[NNescio]

So, your refutation is based on an ability usable 1/encounter at a level few see in actual play, on a archetype even fewer use... and UA material, known to be overtuned and only usable for playtesting until said overtuning can be reined in...

Ok, I guess for the Thief, you're correct. Once they hit 17th level, they can actually have 3 sneak attacks in a round. Once a combat. Ooh, caught me.

There's no need to be that snide just because you're corrected by someone else, especially considering you were 'correcting' ProphetSword's point earlier. And you got it wrong, ProphetSword was right, "Rogues can only apply sneak attack damage once per turn. However, they can apply sneak attack damage multiple times in a round if conditions allow."

The fact that Thief Reflexes is a rare occurrence doesn't change that. By that standard, you might as well consider all 9th-level spells to not be "part of the rules".

Heck, normal L1 Rogues can already potentially SA up to 3 times in a given round anyway, if conditions permit. Like say, if they have a reaction available and hit somebody with an OA before their initiative comes up (SA 1), they start their turn (refreshing their reaction) and hit somebody (SA 2), ending their turn, and then they hit somebody else as another OA (SA 3). This can happen on the first round of combat if the rogue isn't surprised (or on a later round if the Rogue has a reaction available).

Granted, usually the above doesn't happen often unless the Rogue specifically builds to take advantage of OAs (and reaction attacks), investing in feats like Sentinel, Mage Slayer or taking Battlemaster 3 for Riposte, but a counterexample is still a counterexample, and you're still WRONG by RAW, and ProphetSword is correct.

Thief Reflexes can potentially allow up to five SAs on the first round, if the Rogue is not caught surprised. Again, say they have a reaction available and hit somebody with an OA before their initiative comes up (SA 1), they start their first turn (refreshing their reaction) and hit somebody (SA 2), ending their turn, and then they hit somebody else as another OA (SA 3). On their second turn (at their initiative count minus 10, and again, this refreshes their reaction), they hit somebody again (SA 4) and end their turn. Next they hit somebody with an OA again (SA 5).


For UA? Uh uh - we're talking common rules mistakes, not common UA playtest material mistakes. That's like slapping someone's hand for bringing some obsolete rule from the 3rd iteration of D&D Next that no longer exists.

The UA example is illustrates that hitting somebody off-turn multiple times in a round is quite possible if a class feature permits it, and WotC may very well introduce it as part of some other class feature some day down the line. The point is, you can SA once per turn when you hit somebody with a weapon attack (and fulfill the usual conditions for SA), not once per round or 2/round or some arbitrary number.


You might use the broken multiple OAs provided by some UA abilities at your table, but that doesn't make it RAW. Which should be the underlying implication. Otherwise I'd say "Well, at my table, we removed the restriction on Reaction and Bonus Actions - you can take as many of either as you have Dex Mod." Now we're just moving into uncharted territory....

You might think that it's RAW that you can only take 2 SAs per round, but that's not RAW. It's easy to construct counterexamples.

Tetrasodium puts it far more eloquently here:


This is the most common rule mistake. Applying a specific situation to a general rule (no matter how common said specific situation is) and passing it as a rule. I'm sorry for using you Theodoxus as an example, but it just happened to be right on time for the example.

The rule only limits the amount of Sneak Attacks in a turn. The normal situation is that a Rogue can only have a single reaction to trigger Sneak Attack damage out of his turn. This leads to the Rogue being able to normally deal Sneak Attack damage twice a round. (...)

(...) Rogues usually only get at max up to 2 Sneak Attacks per round, but that's not a rule - it is the result of a series of rules that do not always apply as we expect to.
The rule specifically tells us that the limit is "once per turn". As long as that requirement (and all the others) are met, there's no cap on how many per round, no matter how you gain access to those instances.

Tl;dr Most common mistake is taking a set of specific occurrences as a rule and pass that "knowledge" to others in a way that's actually incorrect, propagating the error.



--

Speaking of which, the above discussion does bring up some important points...

1) Your reaction refreshes at the start of your turn ("When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn."), not at the end of the round or the start of a round.

2) You cannot take reactions before the end of your first turn if you're Surprised ("If you’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can’t take a reaction until that turn ends.").

3) If you're Surprised, you still roll initiative as usual, and you still 'take' your first turn in combat. You cannot move or take any actions during this first turn though, so your turn is effectively skipped and you can't do anything, but start-of-turn or end-of-turn effects (such as certain saves against ongoing effects) still trigger as usual.

Corollary to 2 and 3: Once you have taken your first turn (doing mostly nothing), you can take reactions, even during the first round of combat (there is no "surprise round", unlike in 3.5e). Also, since technically you have already taken a turn (even if you did nothing), the Assassin's Assassinate class feature/trait no longer grants advantage on attacks against you.

[Tetrasodium]

It takeshalf your movemet, not 15' t of movement to climb on a mount to be mounted,not half your move speed. There are a lot of things that can raise or lower a character's move speed, but it's still half to mount a mount.

The rider must make a dc10 dex save to remain on a mount if an effect moves the mount "against it's will". failure results in falling prone in a space within 5'[

an intelligent mount acts independently, retains its own initiative, is not hampered by the rider in any way, & can go wherever it pleases regardless of the rider's desire.


M o u n t i n g a n d D i s m o u n t i n g
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that
is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an
amount of movement equal to half your speed. For
example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15
feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can’t
mount it if you don’t have 15 feet o f movement left or
if your speed is 0.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while
you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity
saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a
space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while
mounted, you must make the same saving throw.
If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your
reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet.
Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a
space within 5 feet it.

C o n t r o l l i n g a M o u n t
W hile you're mounted, you have two options. You
can either control the mount or allow it to act
independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons,
act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained
to accept a rider. Dom esticated horses, donkeys, and
similar creatures are assum ed to have such training.
The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match
yours w hen you mount it. It m oves as you direct it, and
it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and
Dodge. A controlled mount can m ove and act even on
the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the
initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on
the actions the mount can take, and it m oves and acts
as it w ishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack
and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against
your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity
attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you
or the mount.

edit: derp

[ProphetSword]

It takes 15 feet of movement to climb on a mount to be mounted,not half your move speed. There are a lot of things that can raise or lower a character's move speed, but it's still 15' to mount a mount.


Can you explain to me where you're getting this from? The section of text you quoted says the exact opposite of this.

[NNescio]

Speaking about mounted combat, the rules aren't clear whether a mounted combatant (the rider) counts as:

1. Being in any of the spaces occupied by his mount
2. Being in the exact center 'point' of the mount (and hence occupying the four squares surrounding it)
3. Being in the exact same square (or squares) he moved to get onto the mount, and hence is required to spend movement to shuffle around his mount's space to get into reach...

...right?

(1 and 2 being functionally equivalent for Large-sized mounts.)

(1) does seem sort of implied by the rules considering you can be targeted by an OA if the mount's movement provokes one (which wouldn't really make sense if you aren't counted as being all of your mount's spaces), but this can result in ridiculous reach if the rider has a huge-sized mount or larger (since any creature with the appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, so long as it is at least one size larger than its rider. This lets the rider control a ridiculous amount of area if combined with Polearm Master (and possibly Sentinel). Sure, most of the more easily-accessible mounts are Large (some Medium), but a simple Enlarge will take care of that problem.

[Tetrasodium]

Speaking about mounted combat, the rules aren't clear whether a mounted combatant (the rider) counts as:

1. Being in any of the spaces occupied by his mount
2. Being in the exact center 'point' of the mount (and hence occupying the four squares surrounding it)
3. Being in the exact same square (or squares) he moved to get onto the mount, and hence is required to spend movement to shuffle around his mount's space to get into reach...

...right?

(1 and 2 being functionally equivalent for Large-sized mounts.)

(1) does seem sort of implied by the rules considering you can be targeted by an OA if the mount's movement provokes one (which wouldn't really make sense if you aren't counted as being all of your mount's spaces), but this can result in ridiculous reach if the rider has a huge-sized mount or larger (since any creature with the appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, so long as it is at least one size larger than its rider. This lets the rider control a ridiculous amount of area if combined with Polearm Master (and possibly Sentinel). Sure, most of the more easily-accessible mounts are Large (some Medium), but a simple Enlarge will take care of that problem.


C o n t r o l l i n g a M o u n t
W hile you're mounted, you have two options. You
can either control the mount or allow it to act
independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons,
act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained
to accept a rider. Dom esticated horses, donkeys, and
similar creatures are assum ed to have such training.
The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match
yours w hen you mount it. It m oves as you direct it, and
it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and
Dodge. A controlled mount can m ove and act even on
the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the
initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on
the actions the mount can take, and it m oves and acts
as it w ishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack
and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against
your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity
attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you
or the mount.


M o u n t e d C o m b a t a n t
You are a dangerous foe to face while mounted. W hile
you are mounted and aren’t incapacitated, you gain the
following benefits:
• You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any
unmounted creature that is sm aller than your mount.
• You can force an attack targeted at your mount to tar-
get you instead.
• If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to
make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half dam-
age, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the
saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.


Based on the AoO wording from 198 & mounted combatant not mentioning banything about size/reach/etc, I'd say functionally the same except for purposes of attacks (i.e. one attack can't stab both, just one or the other). There is also quite possibly the best ruling (https://twitter.com/JM13136849/status/847109366453080065 ) to come down over twitter for covering the rest


Almost anything that is not precisely worded is up to the DM...
The fact that you only really benefit from being mounted if you are meeting one of these criteria suggests it should be reasonable since players can be either rider or mount.



You are a kobold or something else with pack tactics
You took the mounted combatant feat.
your rider took the mounted combatant feat & you are giving them advantage on attacks against anything smaller than you while getting some nifty benefits yourself.
You are a rogue with sneak attack & the mount qualifies you for the advantage or "if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll." from phb96 sneak attack entry.
I've not been able to find anything else really changed by being mounted.]

[TentacleSurpris]

When you can or cannot use sneak attack.

[Tetrasodium]

When you can or cannot use sneak attack.



S n e a k A t t a c k
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly
and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can
deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The
attack [you] must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another
enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it,
that enemy
isn’t incapacitated,
and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The amount of the extra damage increases as you
gain levels in this class, as show n in the Sneak Attack
colum n of the Rogue table.

It's pretty straight forward. you need

Already made a sneak attack once this trurn?... Then you can not do it again
wielding/attacking with a finesse weapon or ranged weapon?
got advantage on that attack roll? Then you can use that sneak attack
Don't have advantage? Is another not-incapacitated enemy of the target within 5 feet of it?... then you can sneak attack if all of those conditions are met


The big difficulty is that the gm can have a lot of leeway to decide when advantage is available outside feats & such that explicitly grant it when a condition is met.

[NNescio]

It's pretty straight forward. you need

Already made a sneak attack once this trurn?... Then you canot do it again
wielding/attacking with a finesse weapon
got advantage on that attack roll? Then you can use that sneak attack
Don't have advantage? Is another not-incapacitated enemy of the target within 5 feet of it?... then you can sneak attack if all of those conditions are met


2. or a ranged weapon.

[Naanomi]

2. or a ranged weapon.
And subclasses may offer other methods as well (swashbuckler does)

[lperkins2]

Hm, by my count, a hasted level 17 rogue could make 11 sneak attacks the first round of combat, if using the marking variant rule.

1: Opponent moving away, uses reaction from start of combat.
2: Sneak attack on rogue's first turn + mark 3 opponents (2 main-hand attacks and 1 offhand bonus action)
3-5: each of 3 marked opponents move away, drawing attacks of opportunity without expending reaction
6: additional creature moves away, rogue uses reaction to sneak attack
7-11: repeat of 2-6 using rogue's second turn on the first round.

Strictly, the number could be higher: fighter for action surge to make more attacks, use the AoO to re-mark the target (which would only work against level 17+ rogues who get a second turn, since you are limited to one AoO per turn).

I think mark is less polished than the other variant rules; it probably should be limited to 1 creature at a time, and probably require you to stay in melee range of it...

[LordVonDerp]

Mage Slayer feat does not give you an Opportunity Attack, it gives you a reaction attack, so whatever spell that triggered the feat gets to happen first.


Yeah, apparently some people still don't get that reaction attacks happen at the same time as whatever triggered them.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Rules reference for anything happening "at the same time"?

[ThePolarBear]

Rules reference for anything happening "at the same time"?

There has to be an error in some part of the post. He agrees with something that is clearly not "at the same time."

I can provide source for the "after" however. DMG page 252.
It states that, when there's no explicit timing, Reactions are taken after the trigger completes.

[FinnS]

Hm, by my count, a hasted level 17 rogue could make 11 sneak attacks the first round of combat, if using the marking variant rule.


Haste doesn't grant you an extra sneak attack any more than Action Surge would.
Both extra actions are still taking place on your turn.
Neither haste nor Action Surge grants an extra​turn. They grant an extra action on your turn.

[Dalebert]

Sneak attack is only once per turn so I can't fathom any way you can ever get more than 2 in a round--one on your turn regardless of how many attacks you get, and one more using your reaction to attack. I don't know of anything that gives you more than one reaction.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Shapechange + marilith?


Which is happening in actual play at so many tables

[Dalebert]

Shapechange + marilith?

Touche.

Of course their sneak attack will be like 2d6 if they have to dip 17 levels of wizard. Nice but not 10d6 every turn like a level 20 rogue.

[NNescio]

Sneak attack is only once per turn so I can't fathom any way you can ever get more than 2 in a round--one on your turn regardless of how many attacks you get, and one more using your reaction to attack. I don't know of anything that gives you more than one reaction.

You can potentially use up to two reactions in a given round, since they refresh at the start of your turn. This can happen when you 'inherit' a reaction from the previous round (since you didn't use it); just OA before your initiative, attack on your initiative (refreshing your reaction at the start of your turn in the process), and then OA after your initiative, all within the same round.

If you aren't surprised, you also can use a reaction before you even take your first turn, on the first round.

Thief's Reflexes lets L17+ Thief Rogues have two turns (one on their initiative and another on their initiative count minus 10) on the first round of combat (provided they aren't surprised). This lets them have potentially up to 5 SAs on the first round, if they get to OA at every opportunity and hit.

You might also be able to assume the shape of a creature with multiple reactions via Shapechange or Magic Jar (using True Polymorph to make the monster eligible for Magic Jar if it's not a humanoid, then ending the True Polymorph). Hard to find such a monster that could work with SA, but the Marilith works (note that strictly speaking it is not 'proficient' with weapons other than longswords, and it can't use Multiattack with other weapons, but even then giving up a longsword attack for non-proficient dagger OAs still works), as pointed out by Coffee_Dragon.

[lperkins2]

Haste doesn't grant you an extra sneak attack any more than Action Surge would.
Both extra actions are still taking place on your turn.
Neither haste nor Action Surge grants an extra​turn. They grant an extra action on your turn.

That is true, but unless I am missing something, Mark does not have a limit on how many creatures you can have marked at a time. The extra attack from haste lets you mark one additional creature on your turn.

"When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target."

If you can make 3 melee attacks, you can mark 3 targets; if they flee, you can make 3 AoOs (one each).

[FinnS]

That is true, but unless I am missing something, Mark does not have a limit on how many creatures you can have marked at a time. The extra attack from haste lets you mark one additional creature on your turn.

"When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target."

If you can make 3 melee attacks, you can mark 3 targets; if they flee, you can make 3 AoOs (one each).

I guess sure, not a big fan of marking myself.
Also, you should clarify that it's a level 17 Rogue(Thief) you're talking about and not just every Rogue.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Sneak attack is only once per turn so I can't fathom any way you can ever get more than 2 in a round--one on your turn regardless of how many attacks you get, and one more using your reaction to attack. I don't know of anything that gives you more than one reaction.

The most notable way is Thief's Reflexes, which explicitly gives you an additional turn, and thus another chance to sneak attack. There are other ways, mostly focused on opportunity attack abuse (Shapechange -> Marilith has been mentioned, Tunnel Fighter would also work...), but they're all somewhat unlikely, while Thief's Reflexes will happen for every Thief Rogue that gets to 17.

[FinnS]

The most notable way is Thief's Reflexes, which explicitly gives you an additional turn, and thus another chance to sneak attack. There are other ways, mostly focused on opportunity attack abuse (Shapechange -> Marilith has been mentioned, Tunnel Fighter would also work...), but they're all somewhat unlikely, while Thief's Reflexes will happen for every Thief Rogue that gets to 17.

4 in the first round only though.

Really, the most you can get is 3/round every other round.

[Misterwhisper]

The main things I see is people not bothering to read the actual 5th edition rules and essentially running it like 3.5 with lower numbers.

Using surprise rounds like in 3.5.

Using delay action.

Using old style ready action.

Never throwing a spell that targets anything but dex, con, and wisdom.

Using 3.5 level skill checks, ex. DC 25 to spot a book out of place on a shelf.

Ignoring that short rests even exist.

Giving npcs much higher skills than they could possibly have. Ex. There is no such thing as "he is too much better than you at X skill for you to get a check." A level 1 character with a 16 in the stat and trained in a skill will have a +5, at level 20 they will probably have a +11, unless they have expertise. So it is very possibly that level lower level people can beat a level 20 on a skill check.

Rogues need to use a finesse or ranged weapon to sneak attack not just any piercing weapon.

Weapons that can be thrown are not ranged weapons.

You can not dual wield darts because they are ranged weapons.

Many people miss what all gives advantage or disadvantage.

Attacks of Opportunity are only when someone leaves your threatened area.

Mage slayer does not give you an attack of oportunity.

Only casters can use a reaction to stop an action as it is being done, non casters have to wait until after the effect of the actuon to see if they can still use their reaction.

You can only draw 1 weapon per round unless you have a feat, then it is only 2. So making a throwing character really only works for people with 1 attack a round.

Many people ignore or do not even know about the actual rules for multiclassing, especially when multiclassing casters.

[Zalabim]

Only casters can use a reaction to stop an action as it is being done, non casters have to wait until after the effect of the actuon to see if they can still use their reaction.
What does this refer to? Also, it looks like an extrapolation rather than something that should be listed as a rule.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

What does this refer to? Also, it looks like an extrapolation rather than something that should be listed as a rule.

I assume he's referring a) to counterspell and b) the general provision that unless stated otherwise reactions occur after the provoking event, but yes, this seems to be the same sort of mistake that ThePolarBear referred to earlier, since there are nonmagical reactions that occur before the triggering action or intefere with it somehow (e.g. Sentinel (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/sentinel-triggering-attack-2/), Protection Fighting Style), and magical reactions that don't.

[coredump]

An invisible creature's location is known unless it takes the hide action or produces no sound.

I agree. That statement is a common rule mistake. There is nothing in the RAW that makes that assertion.
( to be clear, nothing in the rules contradicts that play style, but neither does anything endorse or mandate it)

[lperkins2]

I guess sure, not a big fan of marking myself.
Also, you should clarify that it's a level 17 Rogue(Thief) you're talking about and not just every Rogue.

Aye, that is true. I've not been in a game with marking yet, we're considering it for our next campaign, I figure anything that gives martials a bit more sticking power is a good thing, since they lose so badly to spellcasters. We'll see how it goes in actual play, but I suspect monsters will use it on us far more than any party member uses it.


I agree. That statement is a common rule mistake. There is nothing in the RAW that makes that assertion.
( to be clear, nothing in the rules contradicts that play style, but neither does anything endorse or mandate it)

As he phrased it, I believe that is the only way to rule it (a creature's general position is known if it is seen or heard). I believe the ambiguity is in what it takes to not be heard. Normally, hiding requires some sort of hiding spot (cover) and requires an action to fit yourself into it and make sure nothing obvious is sticking out. What about being quiet? On this, the rules are largely silent, except in the section on stealth at the beginning of combat, where both side roll stealth and perception checks to see who notices whom. Now, on the one hand, that generally happens before initiative order, so nobody has taken the hide action because that wouldn't make sense mechanically, on the other hand, it does say if you are not trying to be stealthy, you are automatically noticed. But where does it say that trying to be stealthy requires an action? The hide action isn't for trying to be quiet, or you could take it when not obscured (I.E. against sleeping opponents). The way I rule it is you have to do something to make your position uncertain (move, hide action, misty-step) and then roll stealth contested by perception to remain quiet. Hide action gives advantage on the check, otherwise it's just a normal check.

[ThePolarBear]

But where does it say that trying to be stealthy requires an action?

That part of the rules builds on the exploration part of the rules, where action tracking is not a thing but to move "stealthly" must be declared and is an activity that still follows the same rules for hiding.

Actions are only used in combat or when there's need to have granular time or a turn order. When there's not this situation, there's really no need to track actions.
However, when tracking of actions is required, there's a simple "rule" that seems to go forgotten: You can improvise actions.

To improvise actions however it is required to do something that is not described elsewhere: If its described, then it's not improvised.

My take on it: if you try to be stealthy you are in fact taking the Hide action, and should follow such rules. You can read "hide" as only "hiding", cowering into a corner and not moving. However it makes 0 sense for me to not use the other meaning for hide - "be unnoticed" - expecially since places where "moving stealthly" is explicitly written still reports to the "hiding" rules.

[Dalebert]

Firstly, an action is the default thing for whenever you say you're doing something unless it's explicitly defined elsewhere as not an action. A DM can declare it otherwise, of course, but if you say "I'm going to do X", it's going to take an action to do X. Again, there are exceptions where specific actions are defined as taking something else--a reaction, a bonus action, a free object interaction, etc.

Secondly, the fact rogues can do it as a bonus action, and that this is a feature, clarifies that it's normally a full action, i.e. the default.

[lperkins2]

That part of the rules builds on the exploration part of the rules, where action tracking is not a thing but to move "stealthly" must be declared and is an activity that still follows the same rules for hiding.

Actions are only used in combat or when there's need to have granular time or a turn order. When there's not this situation, there's really no need to track actions.
However, when tracking of actions is required, there's a simple "rule" that seems to go forgotten: You can improvise actions.

To improvise actions however it is required to do something that is not described elsewhere: If its described, then it's not improvised.

My take on it: if you try to be stealthy you are in fact taking the Hide action, and should follow such rules. You can read "hide" as only "hiding", cowering into a corner and not moving. However it makes 0 sense for me to not use the other meaning for hide - "be unnoticed" - expecially since places where "moving stealthly" is explicitly written still reports to the "hiding" rules.


Firstly, an action is the default thing for whenever you say you're doing something unless it's explicitly defined elsewhere as not an action. A DM can declare it otherwise, of course, but if you say "I'm going to do X", it's going to take an action to do X. Again, there are exceptions where specific actions are defined as taking something else--a reaction, a bonus action, a free object interaction, etc.

Secondly, the fact rogues can do it as a bonus action, and that this is a feature, clarifies that it's normally a full action, i.e. the default.


You are correct about the improvise action filling in as a general 'everything else', and that it is generally a full action, not a bonus action or reaction. The problem is the invisible creature isn't trying to do anything. In fact he is specifically not doing anything that makes noise. Here's an example where I wouldn't even require the stealth check.

Monsters chase warlock + sorcerer into dead-end room. Before the monsters open the door and enter, they hear him cast silence. The sorcerer then uses subtle spell to cast invisibility on both of them. The monsters know there is no way out of the room, and the door has not been opened. Neither the sorcerer nor the warlock have had a turn in which to take the hide action, they do not have the hidden condition. The do however qualify as unseen (PHB pg 194) and unheard. It is in fact impossible for them to give away their position by making noise. If preventing enemies from knowing your rough location requires the hide action, when the enemies enter the room they will immediately know where both characters are, but there is nothing saying that is the case.

The underlying issue is similar to ThePolarBear's point about applying specific circumstances as general rules. The Hide action lets you gain the benefits of an Unseen Attacker, no place does it say that is the only way to gain the benefits of an Unseen Attacker, just that it allows you to do so while behind cover.

As to rogues and certain monsters getting to use the Hide action as a bonus action, the debate is not over whether hiding requires an action (bonus or otherwise) but whether hiding (the action or the vernacular) is required at all to remain undetected (unseen and unheard).

[ClearlyTough69]

Monsters chase warlock + sorcerer into dead-end room. Before the monsters open the door and enter, they hear him cast silence. The sorcerer then uses subtle spell to cast invisibility on both of them. The monsters know there is no way out of the room, and the door has not been opened. Neither the sorcerer nor the warlock have had a turn in which to take the hide action, they do not have the hidden condition. The do however qualify as unseen (PHB pg 194) and unheard. It is in fact impossible for them to give away their position by making noise. If preventing enemies from knowing your rough location requires the hide action, when the enemies enter the room they will immediately know where both characters are, but there is nothing saying that is the case.

That's a great example, and if you asked 10 different DMs to adjudicate on it, you would get 10 different thought processes. As most of us know, that's because there's ample scope for different interpretations and extrapolations of the rules.

I would say the monsters still have a chance of detecting the characters from signs of their passing such as footprints, swirling dust, or shifting cobwebs, or by smell. I have a rule of thumb for determining passive Stealth for creatures that aren't hiding, and I restrict the range of smell, but the monsters might - just might - still detect the characters.

[Dalebert]

The problem is the invisible creature isn't trying to do anything. In fact he is specifically not doing anything that makes noise.

Right. The choice not to do something noisy, even breathing loudly while your adrenaline is racing, IS your action. The key here is whatever you're doing other than hiding tends to be noisy or revealing. Taking your limited mindspace and reflexes to consciously not do anything noisy, or just to move silently without footsteps or rattling things in your backpack takes your action. If you use your action to do something else, you risk that action being noisy UNLESS you can take that action and also put effort into hiding via a bonus action because you have Cunning Action.


If preventing enemies from knowing your rough location requires the hide action, when the enemies enter the room they will immediately know where both characters are, but there is nothing saying that is the case.

Who said the hide action is the only way? If I did, then I mis-spoke. The 5e definition of hidden is "both unseen and unheard". It sounds like they achieved being hidden a different way. Special senses might still find them of course so they may still want to hide from those other senses.

That said, you presented magical resources being expended as an alternative to hiding. That doesn't say anything about whether the act of hiding via the typical mundane means is or isn't an action.

[ThePolarBear]

You are correct about the improvise action filling in as a general 'everything else', and that it is generally a full action, not a bonus action or reaction. The problem is the invisible creature isn't trying to do anything. In fact he is specifically not doing anything that makes noise. Here's an example where I wouldn't even require the stealth check.

If he is not trying to do anything, then he is not doing anything. It's not even dodging in the "non dodge action" sense, it's not trying to stand still, to calm itself, to not bump into creatures that are assumed to be moving in and out of the place. Hexes, squares, "fixed movement" is a game abstraction in rules on how to deal and be able to rule upon what would "normally" happen in such a situation. By consciously asking to "not do anything" the player is fofeiting all of the normalcy above for something that is strictly abnormal - something that should be expressed exactly as "oh, ok, you are trying to stand without really caring about what you are doing, how you are shifting your weight, making the things you carry not tingle, not getting out of the way of the truck coming your way? Ok. Are you sure that's what you mean?". Chances are that the player will say something like "no, i'm actually trying to not make sound." This is hiding. Trying to make yourself unable to be perceived via hearing, or in other words unheard - part of being hidden. The requirement of not being seen clearly is passed - but other things are expected

You have to look at what a person wants to accomplish. Intent is as important as descroption to be able to capture what one really wants - not only in hiding, but in everything - because that's the only way when a DM can fairly adjudicate.

Then if the player REALLY just wants to be still, it's up to the DM to come up with a "what" exactly this action entails - there's nothing in the PHB about that. Characters are assumed to be doing a certain set of thing each round automatically - movement for example takes into account short dashes and stops for dodging for example - that your player specifically wants his character to not do.

He surely won't roll stealth. He won't do anything at all. Also, remember he already acted - he can't really "improvise" an action at this point. In the abstraction, he has been casting a spell VERY visibly, then nothing else happens but the tipical sounds of a creature doing normal combat things.



Monsters chase warlock + sorcerer into dead-end room. Before the monsters open the door and enter, they hear him cast silence. The sorcerer then uses subtle spell to cast invisibility on both of them. The monsters know there is no way out of the room, and the door has not been opened. Neither the sorcerer nor the warlock have had a turn in which to take the hide action, they do not have the hidden condition. The do however qualify as unseen (PHB pg 194) and unheard. It is in fact impossible for them to give away their position by making noise. If preventing enemies from knowing your rough location requires the hide action, when the enemies enter the room they will immediately know where both characters are, but there is nothing saying that is the case.

This is a misconception. Hidden is not a condition, we can call it a status if you prefer. Hidden is specifically stated to be "unseen and unheard". If you are unseen and unheard you do gain the advantages detailed in the "unseen attackers and targets" section. There's nothing that cannot possibly make them hear or see you (well, there are thing that can, but in this instance let's assume there aren't). You are de facto hidden, but not because you are trying to "hide" - you made so that is impossible to use senses to perceive you. Autofails perception, if you want to put it that way, albeit not completely correctly at least in my opinion. You bypassed the need to be stealthy by making everyone else unable to perceive. If those monster had some special ability, they would not have been fooled.

This situation makes you hidden from them, but you are still not trying to hide. You made so that they can't spot or hear you, but are still doing nothing to make so that, should the situation change, you still have this possibility.

Trying to hide =/= being unable to be perceived. The second certainly makes the first way easier to accomplish successfully however :D



The underlying issue is similar to ThePolarBear's point about applying specific circumstances as general rules. The Hide action lets you gain the benefits of an Unseen Attacker, no place does it say that is the only way to gain the benefits of an Unseen Attacker, just that it allows you to do so while behind cover.

As to rogues and certain monsters getting to use the Hide action as a bonus action, the debate is not over whether hiding requires an action (bonus or otherwise) but whether hiding (the action or the vernacular) is required at all to remain undetected (unseen and unheard).

But that's not the question you made. You made the question "trying to be stealthy". You certainly are hidden from someone that is blind and deaf. You are still not attempting to do so. You are making others unable to perceive you. You are being sneaky, but in with a different meaning :D

If i might add: there's also to say that i'm not on the camp of the "automatically know location" should a creature be invisible but not hidden. I'm also not in the camp of "invisible = has to guess location". The rule simply states that is possible to target a creature by hearing. Conditions make hearing possible/not possible/uncertain. What characters are doing/distance/whatever is a factor, but i read the part about "being alert during combat yadda yadda" as a simple exclusion that a normal sized encounter is not enough of a reason to disregard hearing as a factor and instead should be counted as the baseline assumption on which to form an opinion on what and how adjudicate things.

And another point: to take the Hide action you do not need to be behind cover or whatnot: You just need to not be able to be seen clearly from the creature(s) you are hiding from. Yep, this is RAW. You can go check. The cover/obscurement is just an example, but it's not the rule. Hiding rules take for granted that you are trying to go unnoticed - using all the possible applicable senses for a human (sight and hearing), because they start by the requirement of already being in a situation where it's difficult to be seen - if possible at all. That's why they go ahead and make all the examples about how sound reveals your location and the perception and use "hidden" not as a condition.

[lperkins2]

That's a great example, and if you asked 10 different DMs to adjudicate on it, you would get 10 different thought processes. As most of us know, that's because there's ample scope for different interpretations and extrapolations of the rules.

I would say the monsters still have a chance of detecting the characters from signs of their passing such as footprints, swirling dust, or shifting cobwebs, or by smell. I have a rule of thumb for determining passive Stealth for creatures that aren't hiding, and I restrict the range of smell, but the monsters might - just might - still detect the characters.

Aye, in the example I gave, I'd probably have the monsters roll search checks. It's still perception vs stealth, but it consumes the searchers' turns instead of the spellcasters' turns (the same as if they were searching for a hidden object). They also might just launch attacks at every square trying to flush them out, depending on the number and nature of the monsters. Obviously, creatures with tremorsense, keen smell, truesight, et cetera would still know the rough location of the party.



Right. The choice not to do something noisy, even breathing loudly while your adrenaline is racing, IS your action. The key here is whatever you're doing other than hiding tends to be noisy or revealing. Taking your limited mindspace and reflexes to consciously not do anything noisy, or just to move silently without footsteps or rattling things in your backpack takes your action. If you use your action to do something else, you risk that action being noisy UNLESS you can take that action and also put effort into hiding via a bonus action because you have Cunning Action.

And I have no issue with that interpretation, it is a fine ruling, but it is not RAW. An improvised action is when your character tries to do things not covered by specific actions. Trying to avoid doing things generally (but not always) involve saving throws, rather than ability checks, so a dex saving throw to avoid making noise would be fair.

Creatures are assumed to be able to hold their breath for a fairly impressive length of time without making any checks or saves, warforged and undead don't even need to breathe. Characters may or may not have a backpack, or other things which rattle. Further, breathing, beating hearts, and rattling backpacks aren't listed as things which give away your position. If they were, you'd have to spend your action every round to remain hidden, since the hide action only covers you until you give away your position by making noise or breaking cover. The fact that you don't automatically give your position away when walking around behind cover once hidden means you don't automatically make enough noise to give away your position just by moving.




Who said the hide action is the only way? If I did, then I mis-spoke. The 5e definition of hidden is "both unseen and unheard". It sounds like they achieved being hidden a different way. Special senses might still find them of course so they may still want to hide from those other senses.

That said, you presented magical resources being expended as an alternative to hiding. That doesn't say anything about whether the act of hiding via the typical mundane means is or isn't an action.

The debate is not about whether hiding via mundane means requires an action, as that is the whole reason the Hide action exists. The debate is whether invisibility (or complete darkness, magical or otherwise, or heavy obscurement is sufficient to make you unseen and if anything further is needed to make you unheard.

My contention is that invisibility et al is sufficient to make you unseen (invisibility specifically says you are unseen) and that refraining from making noise is sufficient to make you unheard. Further, the rules make no mention of what is required to remain quiet; they only give some examples of what counts as making noise (talking, fighting, casting verbal spells). The fact that the rules make no comment means it is up to DM interpretation (as the PHB errata says about when are stealth checks required) and multiple things are valid interpretations. I find it mechanically clunky to require a specific hide action to remain silent, in the same way an improvised action to refrain from dropping your weapon would seem out of place. Further, if it requires an action to remain quiet, I see no reason that should allow you to remain quiet for multiple turns, even as you move about and consume items from your pack.

coredump's original post simply said that nothing in RAW says it requires an action to go unseen and unheard, only that the hide action allows one to go unseen and unheard while at least lightly obscured. He also admits that nothing in RAW specifies that you can go unseen and unheard without the hide action, so that playstyle is RAW too.

[FinnS]

As far as all the hidden/invisible/silent stuff being talked about...There are other senses besides sight and hearing. Most notably smell and just because a creature doesn't have Advantage on perception checks involving scent doesn't mean they can't still use smell to find an invisible, silenced target.
That's why being Hidden is different from being invisible and/or silenced.
Being Hidden means you are masking everything to achieve stealth.

[lperkins2]

As far as all the hidden/invisible/silent stuff being talked about...There are other senses besides sight and hearing. Most notably smell and just because a creature doesn't have Advantage on perception checks involving scent doesn't mean they can't still use smell to find an invisible, silenced target.
That's why being Hidden is different from being invisible and/or silenced.
Being Hidden means you are masking everything to achieve stealth.

That is not exactly true. Nothing about being hidden means you are masking smell, subsonic vibrations, or dusty/muddy/bloody footprints. In fact, the major use of Pass Without Trace is that it avoids leaving foot prints or anything else that can be used to track you. Successfully using the Hide action gives you the benefits listed in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section (PHB 194), it does not give you the benefit of being un-smelled or un-felt.

There are only 2 senses which specifically allow locating a creature. The first is sight, extrapolated from "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" (or the obvious, if you are seen, then you are not unseen) and hearing "if you make noise, you give away your position" (PHB 177). While other senses can be used to tell a creature is nearby, the only explicit general rules for pinpointing its location (not part of a creature's description) are for sight and hearing in the Unseen Attackers and Targets section. A DM might allow you to pinpoint a creature's location within 5' by smell, but that is just a ruling, not RAW.

[LordVonDerp]

I assume he's referring a) to counterspell and b) the general provision that unless stated otherwise reactions occur after the provoking event, l

Which is a rules error in and of itself.

[NNescio]

4 in the first round only though.

Up to five. Highly unlikely to happen as it requires enemies drawing OAs before, between, and after the Thief's turns on the first round (and the Thief has to hit with all the OAs AND at least once on each of his turns), but still.

[FinnS]

Up to five. Highly unlikely to happen as it requires enemies drawing OAs before, between, and after the Thief's turns on the first round (and the Thief has to hit with all the OAs AND at least once on each of his turns), but still.

True enough and you can't achieve surprise either. Can't get AoO's if they aren't allowed to move in the first round.

[ThePolarBear]

There are only 2 senses which specifically allow locating a creature.

This is false. There are multiple senses that allow you to locate a creature. Rules are written on a "specific > general" basis, the general here being that PHB races for players do not have access to senses that have the ability to locate a creature that is not one of the two assumed ones.

If a creature statblock tells the DM that that creature has a sense that can be used to locate creatures, that creature has a sense that can locate creatures. Be it smell, sight, hearing, taste or even touch or a sixth or seventh sense.


Which is a rules error in and of itself.

DMG, page 252, section "Adjudicating Reaction Timing". It is not an error LordVonDerp. It's just not in the PHB.

Edit:

Another rule mistake that i just remembered, still connected to hiding and so.

There is a VERY big, albeit VERY small, difference between an ability check (can i climb the wall? - ability check, against the ambient or a fixed dc) and a contest (does the elf notice the hiding halfling? - Ability contest, one ability going against another ability).
Difference is that ability checks always win on a value equal to the DC, for contests this is not always true as, in this case, the situation remains unchanged, thus making the one rolling in a challenge the possible loser even if the roll comes up as equal in value.

To clarify, to notice someone that is already hiding the perception of the "noticing creature" has to be higher, not only equal, since the situations remains unchanged - the creature is still hidden and unnoticed.

[lperkins2]

This is false. There are multiple senses that allow you to locate a creature. Rules are written on a "specific > general" basis, the general here being that PHB races for players do not have access to senses that have the ability to locate a creature that is not one of the two assumed ones.

If a creature statblock tells the DM that that creature has a sense that can be used to locate creatures, that creature has a sense that can locate creatures. Be it smell, sight, hearing, taste or even touch or a sixth or seventh sense.



Yes, and I should have been more clear there, as I was in the next paragraph. These other senses would generally allow a creature to find a hidden target, unless the target has some way to mask them (Pass Without Trace, hiding from a scenting creature in a sewer, et cetera). My point was simply that creatures which are not specifically listed as being able to pinpoint a location via some other sense do not get to pinpoint a creature's location via smell, tremorsense or anything other than sight and sound. Yes, humans can make a perception check based on smell, even though they don't "have Advantage on perception checks involving scent", but they cannot use scent alone to pinpoint a creature's exact location, except by DM fiat.

[ThePolarBear]

Yes, and I should have been more clear there, as I was in the next paragraph. These other senses would generally allow a creature to find a hidden target, unless the target has some way to mask them (Pass Without Trace, hiding from a scenting creature in a sewer, et cetera). My point was simply that creatures which are not specifically listed as being able to pinpoint a location via some other sense do not get to pinpoint a creature's location via smell, tremorsense or anything other than sight and sound. Yes, humans can make a perception check based on smell, even though they don't "have Advantage on perception checks involving scent", but they cannot use scent alone to pinpoint a creature's exact location, except by DM fiat.

Yup. Sorry, i missed the "general" back in the second part. And anything thereafter :P

[Syll]

Weapons that can be thrown are not ranged weapons.

You can not dual wield darts because they are ranged weapons.

Darts are an oddball, because they show up under the 'simple ranged weapons' table, but they have both the finesse and thrown properties.

The oddity of having all three of those properties could imply a few different things, (such as the ability to melee with one) but at the same time they lack the light property needed for dual welding ... despite weighing 1/8 what a (light) handaxe does..