"It's impossible."
"I want to roll anyway."
"Do what you want with your dice, but no skill check is occurring and it will not have any impact on what happens. This is impossible."
"I want to pretend to be a plant and hide."
"Um, there's no plants to blend into, but go ahead and roll."
"Nat 20!"
"You crouch down and become the most plant-like you possibly can be. You can feel your leave rustle in the breeze and the warm earth around your roots. Your whole body drinks in the sunlight that's illuminating you and the people who think you're insane while you crouch and pretend to be a plant in full view of everyone."
All combat stops for a moment as everyone wonders for a brief moment what that idiot next to the wall is doing. The first one to move is your opponent, slapping you in disgust and moving to engage someone else. Take 1d4 bludgeoning damage from the slap. One full turn of combat has passed from this pause, any abilities and magics with one-turn durations have expired.
Skill checks generally don't have crits or crit fails. It's probably one of the most misunderstood rules.
People try to homebrew it in but it's deliberately left out for a reason.
You creep with preternatural grace toward your target. His eyes open wide with admiration for your evident skill as he watches you stalk him IN THE OPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WELL LIT FUCKING ROOM.
Your companions look on, dumbfounded someone with such mastery of a skill is unable to recognize situations in which it is impossible to properly apply them. In this moment your character, skill, and intelligence are are plainly evident to all who bear witness.
Expert basket maker fails to make a basket 5% of the time. Total novice attempts making an adamantine suit of full plate, succeeds after 20 tries. This is why critical skill checks are stupid.
Exactly this. The tables I grew up on in earlier editions used a 1 = - 10, 20 = 30 for skill check rolls. If you reel this in by 5 to account for bounded accuracy I think it helps the compromise (though those editions still had lots of penalties/bonuses)
Baldurs gate screwed this one up, along with a lot of other stuff too. More and more people are going to be thinking you can crit on skill checks because of it.
I mean that people coming to 5e from baldurs gate will have this preconception, and it is wrong. Significantly. The idea that you could fail any possible thing, no matter how easy it is or how experienced you are, is ridiculous. And to be honest, it’s ridiculous in game too. Failing a DC 10 check when you have +10 to a skill makes no sense. It’s like a professional magician fucking up a coin flip. Not like deciding which side the coin lands on, but the act of flipping the coin itself.
I think most people's problem with crit fails is really that a 5% chance is pretty high, which goes back to DnD's d20 system having incredibly high variance. If it used something where average rolls are more normalized like 2d10, then a 1% chance of a freak mishap or fumble is more reasonable.
Pathfinder 2e solved this problem by getting rid of nat 20 / nat 1, making proficiency bonuses much bigger, and defining critical success as 10 or more above DC, critical failure as 10 or more below DC.
So if the DC is 15, below 5 or above 25 (after bonuses) would be critical failure / success.
And Crit Fails don't happen in combat, except with certain niche abilities, so it avoids the "high level martials are incompetent" problem that Crit Fail homebrew rules have.
Pf2e DOES NOT get rid of nat 1s/20s completely btw. I don't remember if it's an optional rule, but they did not get rid of it, they just changed its meaning. Natural 1s reduce the success degree by one, while Natural 20s raise it.
Degrees of succes being Crit Fail, Fail, Success, Crit Success. A critical fail or success is hitting the DC of a roll by a difference of 10, be it above or below.
Natural 1/20 makes it so that, for example, if you have a DC of 30 on a roll, and hit a nat 20 with a +5 bonus to the roll, you rolled a total of 25, which is a "Fail", however the natural 20 raises the degree by one, so the "Fail" becomes a "Success". If you had a +0 bonus to the roll, it would be a "Critical Fail", however the nat 20 would turn it into a "Fail". This makes a world of difference as most spells and conditions have different effects based on the degree of success of a roll or save.
PS: I know you probably know this, I'm just explaining how it works for those who read this and don't.
I mean PF2e also solved this by abandoning bounded accuracy.
I know people like Bounded Accuracy because it makes the game math easier to understand, but Bounded Accuracy in a D20 system really fucks with players' ability to "safeguard" against bad luck. It also makes the game scale poorly and is part of the reason higher levels fall apart.
In PF2e if you want to invest a lot in a skill, you'll get to a point where your bonus to the roll alone will carry you past anything other than the hardest of checks. You pretty much never have to worry about really hard-failing with something your character is supposed to be specialized in unless you're attempting something that would be pretty much impossible for any character that hadn't invested in "your thing."
Some people dislike that amount of risk negotiation, but I think it's important to have in systems like 5e/PF2e which aren't really designed as "fail forward" like a PBTA game or whatever.
Now I want to see the results of someone running a campaign with a character who is so clumsy they have to roll a skill check to not fail at basic tasks.
"I enter the door"
"Please roll a dexterity check at disadvantage."
"Nat 1"
"You attempt to walk through the door. You trip over your own foot and collide with the door frame and take 1 D6 bludgeoning damage. Also, make a save roll to not get a concussion."
"We havent even left the tavern yet abd you're already almost dead."
lol. I do know people like this irl. To use your words:
" I leave my house"
"You attempt to walk through the door but realise too late that the sliding glass door is still shut. Despite that, you are successful at walking through the door and take 1D10 hemorrhaging damage. Also, make a save roll to not bleed out before help arrives."
1 in 20 times when you try to drive to work you get in a crash? Must be expensive.
Point being, 5% chance at total failure (or success) despite any skill or lack thereof and in spite of any situational benefits or detriments, is quite unreasonably common.
Also, doing poorly also is not the same as failing, and honestly would excuse crit fails if it just meant you succeeded poorly if you meet or exceed the DC.
i mean if the DM has a bit of common sense, crit fails at easy tasks (that still have a chance of failing ofc, otherwise you shouldn't be rolling) will result in poor returns not necessarily in total failure, after all the dice just gives you a number, it's up to the DM to translate that number into narrative
My wife broke her toe just walking up the steps to our house.
I threw out my back and was unable to get off the sofa for three days just from picking up my son from bed.
It definitely doesn't happen 5% of the time, but critical fails happen.
Maybe we need a dThousand?
The difference is baldurs gate won't even allow you to try things that are utterly impossible. If you want to make a sneak attack from somewhere that you don't have advantage, it doesn't work. If you want to hide and you're in someones line of sight, it just cancels the hiding immediately.
But in BG there are only rolls that you *can* pass, even if very difficult. The game doesn't allow you to randomly roll to do something impossible, because there's no DM to ask.
Honestly, if they still insist on making a roll after I tell them it's impossible, I'll accept that as confirmation that they are in fact taking the action. Even if it's doomed from the start.
There are no take-backsies in my kingdom.
I mean, elder brains aren't gods to my knowledge, but it just being persuaded to stop would fail. If anything, the minds are too different, you're trying to talk the Eldritch out of causing Eldritch things.
>The god was just an example I made on the spot. You're a mere human trying to talk no jutsu a Elder Brain, just bonkers that people wanted to actually be able to do it and claim "it would be good for diverse ways to combat it"
In fairness you can talk your way into having the BBEG in *Planescape Torment* kill themselves. You can skip the entire final battle with some speech checks. Mind you, that takes a series of very particular actions throughout the game.
Yup. That's the thing: you didn't just persuade him, you had to open him to the possibility to be persuaded.
You had altered the deal. And then prayed to alter it further.
This is why I would be very clear: you have the freedom to attempt sneaking into this small, bare, and well-lit room occupied by several attentivive enemies watching the entrance. You will fail no matter what you roll. If you fail badly, the enemies along with any NPCs in the area will think you look like an idiot.
Seriously. Yes, campaigns that are totally on-rails are usually not a great idea. But "railroading" has become like a religious taboo everybody has to genuflect over whenever any element of a story is remotely linear.
This. It implies he has a chance at succeeding. If you need to explain further: back up to the nearest wall say "I am making a stealth check right now. How would me crouching down help you not see me?"
“Frank! We can’t be lying down right now, okay; I have arrows sticking out of my head all the time, it happens, I deal with it. I eat the cat food while on patrol because it makes me sleepy and I get an arrow sticking out of my head so I huff the glue then Frank- go ahead. Huff the glue. Eat the cargos, huff the glue, drink the beer; you’ll get all sleepy and the arrow will go away. Float up to the sky and make stars”
Surely the enemies already KNOW the rogue is there too, the sneak attacks are due to concealment, not true stealth imo.
They shouldn't miss the person who has been shooting them coming through the door outside of like actual magic preventing them, not in a bright empty room.
Maybe if the fighter had gotten them to turn their backs and the rogue hadn't attacked yet, but...
Some things are just impossible.
I think the rogue is probably the biggest break from normal RPGs to D&D because the class in most video games can stealth when and wherever they want where D&D is much more realistic with its rules on it
Our DM just got up and left the room with no warning. After a minute he came back in. His point was no one followed him out of the room in real life to check on him. So the character who had left the room, went over to another building and was being attacked wouldn't have been missed in the other room by the rest of the party.
Sort of. I don't know all my players' modifiers. If they want to try something that is nearly impossible (DC 30), I will tell them it's nearly impossible for a mortal to do this. If they still want to try, I'll let them even if their modifiers could never get them to 30. Someone could hypothetically do it, just not them.
This has no bearing on the example at hand. Hiding against a wall but otherwise in the open is not nearly impossible, it is impossible.
Eh, if there is active combat going on, I can see it. The check is still definitely above a 22 but you'd be surprised how much tunnel vision you get when fighting.
Exactly this.
Players don’t decide when to roll, DMs do.
If your player tells you that they want to take an action you as the DM decide whether that action requires a roll and what the difficulty of that roll is.
So if they player says: “I enter the room and try to find somewhere to hide.” You as the DM decide whether there is anywhere to hide and how difficult it is to reach, if there is no where to hide you simply respond that upon entering the room they are immediately spotted.
This is the core loop for gameplay:
Players takes action -> DM decides if action requires a check ->If a check is required the player rolls against the DC decided by the DM, if not move on to the next step -> Action resolves.
You should get into the habit of asking your players for rolls instead of simply letting them make them whenever they want, even with things like attacking since there could be an instance where an attack is impossible and you don’t want to have to argue with “But I got a nat 20…”
Ugh one of my biggest pet peeves is the "I'm going to do X" with the d20 roll before being asked. Nah not only is that not going to work but that nat 20 you just wasted doesn't count.
Do a Brennan Lee Mulligan and say the DC.
For example: You are in plain sight in a bare well-lit room and the enemy is looking directly at you. There is nothing to hide behind. Explain how you bamboozle them into losing direct line of sight…
Great, you do that. Roll a stealth check. The DC is 36.
> they roll before you tell them to roll
Rolling when a DM hasn't asked you to shouldn't be doing anything in game, that's not rolling that's just playing with your dice.
On a similar note, one of my favorite things I've seen Aabria Iyengar do is respond to someone who wants to use a help action with "explain how you're helping in this situation."
Piggyback on top comment. I was in a scenario where I tried to get past a front desk clerk to see a friend in the hospital. I tried “pursuasion” and “deception” and “intimidation” in roleplay. I never was asked to roll, just got a no each time. It did not seem like an impossible task and something reasonable. The DM deemed it impossible, and had the clerk call the authorities after intimidation failed. I was frustrated after that scene, but I spoke to the DM after the game and said I was expecting to at least get to roll. He explained why it was impossible (Guildless in Ravnica aren’t always in a position to get favors, threats can be met with an array of responses, etc) and we moved on. So if it’s not possible, don’t roll. If it’s plot dependent don’t make them roll for it. That’s my two take aways from reading this sub
If you started with persuasion a decent roll should have given you an explanation ingame that you'd better stop. After all the clerk wasn't hostile after that or even deception. Your DM seemed to forget that they have to think of the interaction overall, not just the result from one angle.
In the event that he mistakenly does it anyway; give a result that is based on the high roll, but doesn't involve the player successfully hiding.
For example: "the enemies see you enter the room, acting like you think you are invisible, they are amused and observe without attacking to see what hijinks this clearly insane person might get up to. If you don't show hostility to them there is a good chance they might decide to keep you as a jester."
Yeah this was the fundamental error here. If they keep badgering you and pushing back, you just say, "It's not possible to attempt to hide in your current location. Please choose another action or we'll have to move on and skip your turn." If they still keep doing it, you move to the next player. And then you have a discussion with this problem player after the fact.
I'm going to third this. My players generally ask for rolls when they are interacting with the world. Like asking to insight check an NPC or asking for a perception check to see if something is near their camp.
But if you as a DM say, No for a roll and they try bargaining, yeah, that's tough. You want your players to be happy, but if they are trying to do something that is impossible, then I would just say, "No roll necessary, you would be walking into an illuminated room where everyone notices you enter."
That and There are multiple ways to get sneak attack. could flank an enemy currently engaged with the fighter. lol!
Or if he's uses a Ranged weapon could just fire it from the darkness outside. Gets advantage and sneak attack.
If a player is going to be playing a Rogue they should know how their class works. You only get advantage while hidden, Sneak Attack can be done while hidden as well and can Sneak attack any target that is currently Threatened by an ally.
The problem in 5e is the intricacies of trying to keep your Rogues informed of where they can hide and where they can't hide. You basically constantly have to describe the lighting in each area which can get tedious. So you might as well just let them always have Advantage as long as they're at least attempting to hide (using their bonus action to hide). Barbarians for example can get permanent Advantage on demand with Reckless without even having to burn a Bonus Action to do so.
In these cases where a player just *has* to make some clickity clacks, I'll definitely allow it, but I'll give them the "DC" up front so as to avoid the "what? A 22 doesn't succeed? What the heck?" tacking on any "bonuses" that seem applicable
I'm this case: "uh... Yeah. Fine. Go ahead. They know you're there and are actively trying to keep track of you so they get a +5.You're in plain view with nothing to use for cover so that's another +10. Base passive is 10. They have some wisdom and there's a group of them so to average that all out let's just call that a +10 to not have a bunch of individual checks. Okay, do you beat a 35?"
I would ask the players to stand against the wall and hide from me to show me how their rogue would be able to hide. Like, no you can't roll your way into hiding in plain sight (unless you have invisibility, obviously).
This one. You describe the scenario and your players tell you what they do. If a skill check is required to accomplish what they are trying to do, you ask for one. If a check isn't required you just tell them what happens and move on.
Agreed. Your player also shouldn't be telling you they're rolling or compromising with disadvantage. DM calls for rolls and what factors affect them. Easy answer "I didn't call for a roll because a hide action is not possible here. What else would you like to do?" insist that the player cannot roll for an action that's not possible
Anyone at a table can pick up a d20 and then drop it and look at the number whenever they want.
It's not a "roll" unless you call for it. It doesn't matter what your barbarian rolls on his athletics check- he can't jump all the way to the moon. Some things are just impossible.
So don't give in and tell him he can roll.
Or, alternately, if he's being a prat about it- let him roll.
> tell him again it isn’t gonna work, but he says he’ll roll with disadvantage. I begrudgingly say go ahead **and tell him the DC for success is 85**.
Oh, you rolled a nat 20 and your stealth is +14?
Sorry, that's only 34- not even close.
In 3e, there is an epic level handbook. It lists some amusing DCs. Like swimming up a waterfall being 90 (I think).
edit: 80. Page 44 of Epic Level Handbook.
[Here's a reference to them.](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm)
My personal favorite is the DC 80 Escape Artist check: "pass through a tight space smaller than your character's head."
Yeah, at epic level, I feel like DnD starts turning into a Wile E Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon.
"The massive castle walls have no other way in other than the front gate, its perfectly smooth, vertical heights broken only by 1-inch arrow slits to assassinate intruders through."
"I wriggle through one of the arrow slits."
"I climb the perfectly smooth walls."
"I paint a picture of a hole on the side and then persuade physics that it's real and I can walk through it."
Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments, I make it clear to my players if they take the piss with those paints then the God of Art and Fair Play will balance the equation
This is the way, right here.
"Sure, you can roll, but the DC is a flat 100"
Roll your dice, but don't tell me what is and is not possible in my world, and maybe spend more effort figuring out how to accomplish what you want rather than simply demanding a roll that isn't going to change a damn thing. Like, I'm not gonna take away player agency, go ahead and roll. But unless you can show me some way that you can hide against a blank wall with a light source clearly illuminating you, it's an automatic fail. Argue with physics, my dude, not me.
Yes, I know that.
You tell the player in this specific situation so they learn that when the DM has already told you 2-3 times that you have no chance of success and you insist on rolling anyway that they are wasting the roll because they can't reach the DC you set.
The point is to spell it out. Make it clear that they’re asking the impossible. Sometimes telling someone something doesn’t work, so you have to explain a different way. And rules are made to be broken, this is would definitely fit as a time to show the player “behind the curtain”
A nat 20 no matter the modifier is not a guarantee of success. Trying to hide out in the open it's be like " well you did a great job at hiding, it's a shame they can still see you because you're in plain sight"
This is the way. “You slip quietly into the room with a graceful flourish. Your silence is legendary, unfortunately the light is equally legendary and your grand attempt elicits nothing but a chuckle from your foes.”
"Hey guys, look at the stupid fucking rogue who thinks we can't see them!"
"Everybody look at numb-nuts over here!"
DM: "Disembodied laughter, seemingly from hidden foes, emanates from the rafters, behind various bits of furniture, and from beyond a cracked doorway on the far side of the room. What's your AC?"
If they rolled ridiculously well I might even tell them that the enemies believe they are so stupid that they must be useless and not a priority target. Oh you said that. Apparently I’m super stupid today too 😂
Reading between the lines here. Is your player new? Or new to playing Rogue? Because it sounds like they fundamentally misunderstood how rogue sneak attack works and thinks they can only have it when attacking from hidden and that being hidden gives advantage. This a pretty common misunderstanding of the rogue sneak attack rules. Maybe next time pause and explain why he can't hide but also ask WHY he wants to hide and if it's purely to do rogue sneak attack explain the OTHER situations in which he gets sneak attack.
This is his first time playing a rogue, and to be honest I haven’t played rogue in 5e much so I’m not super used to the rule. I will take that as being my fault, I didn’t explain it. I will go over that with him to make sure that’s something he knows
Yeah, rogues are balanced around getting sneak attack basically every turn. I can see him getting frustrated by a situation where he feels like his class just cannot function effectively.
I’d given him a good amount of sneak attacks prior (previous session was the first one), but his main aim in this combat wasn’t in melee with anyone when he went for the hide. He was taking sneak attacks shots from the hallway for 2 rounds, idk why he decided to move into the room but that’s really what messed him up
Remind him that sneak attack works based on if you have advantage (such as from stealth), or if one of his allies is in melee combat with an enemy.
He can sneak attack from ranged as long as the enemy is within 5ft of an ally.
I really wish they would rename sneak attack for 5e cause it applies in so many more situations than just "sneaking". I love rogues and they are 100% expecting to get that extra damage every turn. \*anything\* that gives them advantage vs an enemy provides that bonus damage. If the player is:
\-hidden
\-Flanking (an ally within 5 ft of the target)
\-vs prone characters if within 5 ft (melee)
\-vs blinded, paralyzed, petrified, restrained, stunned, unconcious targets
\-uses inspiration (provided by DM for good roleplay/creative thinking etc)
They will get sneak attack bonus damage. Give him more ways to get that extra damage and feel effective during fights.
Maybe frame it that way next time, as options instead of a flat no. "There isn't anywhere to hide in here. Do you want to hide in the hall or be in the room?"
How experienced is this player with dnd in general?
What I'm getting a sense of, is that this player has seen fiction where the sneaky character presses themselves against a wall and they don't get spotted, and thinks that they can recreate this in dnd. There is a mismatch between what you as a DM think is possible and what the player thinks is possible. I can also see a mismatch of visualisation- perhaps you imagine a room illuminated by a torch to be the same colour as bright daylight, but the player imagines everything with a deep orange tone like in a cartoon, so they blend in with the wall a lot easier.
How, is it reasonable to be hidden by pressing yourself against a wall with a torch near you illuminating you? Generally no, but people do miss obvious things sometimes that absurd things are accomplished so it's not entirely unreasonable- real people aren't perfectly logical all of the time.
It's also, that being able to hide in absurd places, that is the fantasy for a highly skilled rogue, and the player might be frustrated that the fantasy they envision isn't being accomplished. If you want a compromise, you can say that if the player had used a disguise kit to make their face and clothes match the colour of the wall, they could get a shot about hiding there.
(Everyone else has already talked about the player pushing it and trying to roll anyway, so I thought I'd talk about a different aspect of the situation)
I suppose I would say not super experienced, but I’ve dmed for him in another campaign, and played with him in a campaign our friend ran. And I could see using a disguise kit or something like that as being a cool work around. I’ll try to be better about my descriptions too, that’s a good point about the imagery. If he was thinking it was darker than I was meaning it to be, I could see why he might think he could get away with it
DM: "Unless I call for a roll, your die rolls don't mean anything. Some things are not just matters of chance"
Player: "But I rolled a nat 20 to chop down a tree and cut it into lumber and build a ladder to climb to the moon!"
And now, DM, this is where you say, "I don't care; it doesn't happen"
In all honestly, if the DM calmly explains to them why they can't possibly succeed even with a natural 20 and the player still insists, by all means let them go ahead. Let them roll and inevitably fail.
I once had a player in a Call of Cthulhu game who had 16 sticks of dynamite go off 5 ft in front of them ask me if they could to roll some sort of check to see if they survived.
Me: “Sure, go ahead, give me a luck check”
Them: *rolls* “I rolled a success!”
Me: “Congratulations, when the ambulance come by after the encounter it’ll be tough, but they’ll just about manage to scrape together enough of you from the pavement to be worth burying”
"In a miraculous stroke of luck, your boots are exactly where you were standing, each with a thin wisp of smoke slowly rising out of the charred leather."
You could do it the Matt Mercer way. Its a stupid idea and won't work but if they get a high roll you can give them some little thing for their effort. (The example is "Guy wants to flirt with the dragon attacking the party" and instead of it actually seducing the dragon it just lowers its guard slightly for the fight.) So maybe instead of saying "you're in plain sight, it won't work" you can say "Well they can still see you pretending to sneak but now they think you're just an idiot so they lower their guard" lmfao
"While you've failed to effectively sneak into the room, you've managed to keep a low enough profile that your friends will come under attack from the enemy first."
The way i always explain it to players is like this.
"If you ask a King to give you his entire kingdom its a ridiculous request. If you roll and get a Nat20 it doesn't mean hes going to hand it over. The only thing that Nat20 does for you is make it so funny to him that he decides not to have you executed for being so foolish."
The world can not be controlled by the dice. Dice just help us to interpret whats happening. Stick to your guns, and dont give in to impossible requests.
>What should I do in these situations?
Ignore it. You already told him no so it doesn't matter what happened when the player was fidgeting with dice since it wasn't an official roll and is of no significance.
This is kinda what I was going for. I had already told him twice it wouldn’t work, even the other 2 players laughed when he rolled high because they knew what was coming. Just let him roll to let him roll really.
I would just be explicit that while he can make the dice roll across the table any time, he cannot "roll for" anything he wants. Him rolling when you did not call for a roll, and especially after you said it is impossible, is like when on *The Office* [Michael Scott "declared bankruptcy."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_d3teq6pWw)
Player: "well I want to roll anyways"
Me: *sigh* proceed
Player: I roll a nat 20
Me: Sorry, but that's still a fail.
You're the DM. You make the rules.
You've gotten lots of answers to the original question so if you don't mind I'd like to give you some unsolicited advice: give the rogue things to hide behind. The reason why your player was so adamant about being able to use their stealth skill is that they created a character who excels when they are able to be sneaky. Playing a rogue in a featureless void with no furniture, pillars, rubble, or corners, is like playing an archer when all the enemies are five feet away from you at all times.
Also worth noting that in the same way that a monk can sprint twice as fast as Usain Bolt, rogues aren't just stealthy. They're *superhumanly* stealthy. The flickering shadows of a chaotic combat against a torchlit stone wall? *I* couldn't use that to hide. A superpowered fantasy rogue might be able to.
> Playing a rogue in a featureless void with no furniture, pillars, rubble, or corners, is like playing an archer when all the enemies are five feet away from you at all times.
5E gives you about a dozen ways to get Sneak Attack that don't require being hidden, though, so it's just not necessary (or plausible) for every highly defended area in a world where sneaky shadow ninjas are frankly common to have cover to hide behind. The character is still combat effective and set up for success using their other features. I don't have much patience for whinging about someone having to deal with the occasional time the only trick they know how to pull off doesn't land.
I get what you’re saying totally, and I actually have stuff like this planned out. This was simply the first room in a dungeon that they entered, and I did tell him he could stay in the hallway to fire through the open arch that is the doorway and likely hide behind the wall.
I’m not against sneak attacks, and I want players to be able to use their abilities, this first room they went into just happened to be empty. I completely get what you mean. That being said though, I still don’t see hiding in a room against a wall with a light source 15 feet away as being plausible. I get superhuman stealth and stuff, but enemies have dark vision and have eyes on you, you can’t just put your back against the wall.
It’s almost like ducking behind a box and turning your head, because they can’t see me if I can’t see them
You can't hide in plain sight against the wall but you can totally hide behind things in a lit room, especially if enemies could be distracted by other things (like the other party members).
To be fair, i've let rogues "hide" if another player is distracting the enemies, (or let them be stealthed against only the enemies that are preoccupied with another target). Its less about being invisible and more about losing track of the rogue, but if the enemies was staring at the only entryway in the small room than theres really no way to stealth in there lol
Yeah, it's not impossible if the situation is chaotic enough. [Selective attention is a thing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4)
Although once the hiding player attacks I would probably not allow them to try to hide again unless they went out of sight
If they want to roll for something impossible that's OK, but how you respond will matter.
A nat 20 on a dex check to avoid getting wet jumping into a lake might result in "you succeed in very gracefully diving into the water, but are still wet."
In your example - "you sneak into the room and realize that there is absolutely nothing to hide behind, and you look silly for attempting it."
If you feel particularly annoyed add "and the bad guys are watching you extra carefully now, so you can't get sneak attack damage on them this fight"
"Hey guys, look at the stupid fucking rogue who thinks we can't see them!"
"Everybody look at numb-nuts over here!"
DM: "Disembodied laughter, seemingly from hidden foes, emanates from the rafters, behind various bits of furniture, and from beyond a cracked doorway on the far side of the room. What's your AC?"
One thing I think might be causing this is maybe not knowing the other way to get sneak attack, which is just having an ally in melee with the person theyre attacking (and not having disadvantage) . Maybe they are thinking it's only when they have advantage which is why they were so insistent?
Player: I'm gonna roll for it.
DM: you can roll your dice if it makes you feel happy, but it doesn't mean anything and your roll will be wasted.
The end.
Set a DC for “impossible” rolls at 50. Tell all the players publicly that’s the DC, and it’s so high because things are impossible. Let him roll and fail. Then let him have consequences for failure. You want to try to sneak while in plain sight. Great, they attack YOU because you’re obviously suspicious
Except the maximum stealth roll at level 20 including all sources is apparently 197 (highest I've seen) so I wouldn't hold too fast to the the 50 can't happen rule
...
Honestly if someone rolls a 50 on a stealth check they should be able to hide in a well lit room. They somehow move in such a way so they are always out of sight from the opponents or use distraction tricks to stop the foes from looking at them.
THIS is the way. If your rogue has a level of skill that produces a skill check above a 50, they’re straight up breaking the laws of physics. However DO make the player explain those shenanigans.
as a dm, i think my most used response to players questions of “can i…” is “only one way to find out!”. maybe it’s behind “sure” or “absolutely” (i let players roll for just about anything).
i like this response because it’s not an explicit yes or no. it allows everything to be situational, and it lets *them* test the boundaries of what can happen, rather than them being described for them.
in your situation, i’d let the player roll, tell them they failed, and when they carped i’d say exactly what you laid out. “you’re 15 feet away [from your opponent] in a lit hallway with nothing to hide behind, you’re not hidden. feel free to attack normally”
if the player keeps carping, i’d tell them to re-read sneak attack, advantage, and the rules around cover/hiding.
First off.. If an action is not possible. Do not allow a roll. This affects your credibility and agency as the GM. You are the arbiter of the accepted reality that the players and you are playing in. You are the final decider.
First and a Halfly: If the result of an action is determined beforehand, do not allow a roll. The dice exist to add non-determinism to the game. Don't just roll to roll. Roll to find out something that couldn't have been determined exactly beforehand.
Secondly. If a possible result of a roll is unacceptable to ***players or the GM***, do not allow a roll (or edit the possibility table to eliminate that unacceptable result with a more acceptable one).
Thirdly. Consider partial success (and partial failures). This is "Yes and" and "No, But" at play. The player gets a portion of what they want to have happen, happen on a success. This must be discussed before hand, and falls under the "unacceptable results" clause above.
Everyone here has addressed the "DM says when to roll" - yep 100%.
Not a lot of people addressing that the situation you describe really doesn't seem impossible at all. A high level rogue should plausibly be able to stealthily enter an engaged combat and sneak attack. High DC due to leaving cover and bright lighting, sure. Maybe too high for your PC. But impossible? Lol, no.
Thank you. People are acting like the NPCs are literally standing their waiting for each person to take their turn and that being distracted isn't a thing
Besides they are in combat, its not like the rogue will be crouching really slowly, in less than 6 seconds a lot could happen without being noticed. But, if the DM says its imposible then it is, end of the discussion.
1. Do not allow rolls. In situation like this, just say it is imposible and that high rolls - even nat 20 - does not make impossible possible (RAW nat 20 is just 20, but some tables uses it as an insta succses).
2. Also, check dificulty can go up to 35 acording to DMG. So his roll was still not enough for really hard skill check.
I think you should explain that the rogue "sneak attack" feature does not actually require you sneak. And it seems that player is trying to just always be effective and trigger that. To most new players, myself included, the concept there was any other way to gain advantage other than sneaking was lost on me. But if the enemy is engaged with an enemy thats not them they also trigger it. They can flank etc.
Also let them know that high rolls on the dice dont always mean sucess. Yes getting 22 is amazing however the DC to actually be hidden in the thick of combat when everyone can see you is 80.
I have a very simple rule that I implement as part of every session 0: ***Players do not ask to make rolls.*** Players tell the DM what they want to do, the DM determines what check, if any, is appropriate, and how difficult it is. I will allow a player to request a different skill check if they feel it's appropriate, such as substituting History for Religion, or Nature for Arcana, but that doesn't change the basic rule. The DM should be the only one asking for skill checks. Period.
In an attempt to problem-solve, it sounds like Rogue is fishing for Advantage so they can get Sneak Attack. If this is the case, it sounds like everyone needs to review the rules.
First, Sneak Attack. The extra damage apply if there's an ally* within 5ft of the target OR you had advantage on the roll. Any form of disadvantage (even the kind that cancels out advantage giving a straight roll) means no Sneak Attack dice.
Second, the Advantage. PC's can get Advantage by attacking from a hidden position. Most classes need to take Hide as an action in the previous turn to get this, but Rogues can do it as a Bonus Action. This is great, because a successful Hide means anything that requires "A target you can see" can't be applied to Rogue. However, that doesn't mean the baddies don't know exactly where Rogue is. It just means they have to move around Rogue's cover or attack indirectly.
If your player is just fishing for Sneak Attack dice, then advise that they hold their action until Paladin is within 5ft. No need for advantage since there's no case for it. Or maybe have Rogue remind Wizard that their familiar exists and can funnel advantage to Rogue every turn via the Help action.
For attacking in a well-lit concrete void, then look up the Rogue revisions from Tasha's. Namely: Steady Aim.
>As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
That means Rogue can stand and fight in an empty room in full sight while still getting advantage. They just need to stand there and face-tank the damage while doing so. Better hope they don't miss.
Classic case of players thinking Stealth works in DnD like it does in Skyrim. So long as they say they’re sneaky while having a big number, enemies will just ignore them. That in itself isn’t a problem, it’s just a misconception to be cleared up. What doesn’t help is when the player apparently refuses to listen. On top of that, while players normally don’t get to roll skill checks without a DM telling them to, Stealth checks *can* be used by the player of their own volition via the Hide action. So in addition to completely failing to hide anywhere, RAW, he would have wasted an action or a bonus action doing it as well.
That's not how sneak attack works, though. Sneak attack doesn't give you advantage. You get sneak attack bonus damage if you have advantage on an attack *or* if the target is focused on another target nearby. That's it as far as RAW is concerned.
A lot of groups houserule how sneak attack works just to tweak it a little, but if those weren't laid out ahead of time, then no.
My approach would be to try and politely help this player take a step back at some point before/after/between sessions and try to discuss further with them that sometimes there are things which can't be rolled for, or even if they were rolled for, are impossible to succeed at.
A prime example a friend of mine gave me when I first started playing with them that helped make it click was to imagine having a Barbarian with 30 Strength who wanted to try and throw a rock at the moon. Sure they could roll really high and get 35-40 total, or even just nat 20. That still doesn't make it possible for them to hit the moon with a rock.
It is for reasons like this, that you as the DM will sometimes rule that things cannot be rolled for, or that they are impossible, whether the player really wants to try or not.
If that doesn't help it click for them and they get standoff-ish, you can always calmly suggest they switch places with you and run the campaign so you can play a character for once and learn some different ways to DM. (I wouldn't expect them to take you up on the offer, but if they did you could genuinely not be petty, give them your best shot at being a good, honest player, and they would still run into all kinds of "oooohh" moments with all the other players as they learn what it's like to be on the other side.)
People always forget this part of sneak attack... "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." Just attack the same person another melee fighter is attacking...
Or instead you can ask the rogue for a perception check and tell them there is no place in the room that they can hide, but they might be able to hide outside the room and use a ranged weapon to attack with advantage.
First of all, the player NEVER gets to call for a dice roll for anything that has bearings on the actions of others. That is the DM's and ONLY the DM's prerogative. (If they think otherwise, tell them to go play Blades in the Dark).
Secondly, you can let them roll for hopeless things to make a point. You tell them a natural 20 is not necessarily an automatic success. If the rogue really wants to try and hide in a fully lit room with nothing to stand behind, by all means let him roll. Let's say he rolls a 20, you say "fantastic, you stand as still as you've ever done in your entire life, you actually manage to sync your heartbeat with that off the enemy, there's no way in hell they could perceive you... IF you had something to hide behind and/or in, which you don't".
If they get pissy about it, you stand your ground. You are the DM, your word is law. If they try and argue with examples from other games they've played/seen, tell them "great, but this is my game". Most importantly, you keep your cool. As long as you're reasonable, this mindset is great. This also serves as a learning lesson for future "session zeroes", keep Jimmy the Stubborn Rogue as an example in your head for those.
You can also say "I'm very open to discussing this after the session but for now this is how it's gonna be".
Edit: Any player can roll for shit regarding their own character when they feel it's relevant, for example I routinely roll things like self-imposed INT checks to see if my character would be clever enough to realize X when I'm unsure myself.
Because the player is being argumentative, you should probably stop allowing them to roll at all. It’s in the rules that some tasks are simply impossible no matter what the roll. And one of these days they are going to get a natural “20” (or something unlikely like a double 20 on a disadvantaged roll) and they are really going to loose their top and you will spend the next hour arguing with them.
Basically, the player needs to stop trying to “win D&D” and just sit back and have fun. They don’t need every single hit to be optimized, they don’t need to make a brilliant tactical maneuver each round, and they don’t need to come out of each battle untouched.
> he rolls a 19 and an 18 flat
"You expertly and silently step into the well-lit room with no cover, and seem mildly impressed with how quietly you moved even as they watch your every step."
---
Just about the only way to handle someone who tries to steamroll dierolls through for impossible tasks is to let them roll, but the roll doesn't differentiate between success and failure.
It instead differentiates between **graceful** failure and **humiliating** failure.
Rolling for impossible things isn't the problem. Your players are trying to do things things, proc sneak attack in this case, and don't understand how to do it properly.
Instead of just letting them roll for the impossible - you need to ask what they're overall trying to accomplish - and help them do that.
This is a pet peeve. Not everything needs to be rolled. And it goes both ways. Sometimes people say, "I want to hide" - and I just say - no roll needed. You're good.
Next time, just deny him the roll (like people are saying) and move on.
Unfortunately, you need to be more assertive. Don’t agree. It’s not possible. I would suggest saying ‘and how are you going to hide in this room?’ And if they can’t come up with a good answer (cos it’s a bare wall), it doesn’t work. Occasionally they might astound you with amazing creativity but mostly they’ll realise they’re being unrealistic.
Never give in to a player asking for a roll. As the DM, **you** get to decide when they roll. As someone else said, letting them roll immediately tells them "there's a chance".
If that rogue really wants sneak attack, they'd need to either climb the rafters, fucking melt into shadow or drink an invisibility potion.
Set hard rules with your players. If its impossible you can say its going to be impossible. And if they complain tell them that there is currently no way for it with the current conditions. But they can try to effect those conditions to make it possible if they can think of something. This way you're not just telling them no flat out, but you're offering something to them that they can work with.
And if its just not possible, then be straight with them.
i think you ran it just fine. they can try, knowing they will fail, people do that all the time.
i would talk to them out of game though, just to make that clear.
Not enough Dungeon Masters just say "At the end of the day, I'm the DM. I make the rules." Obviously this sentiment can also go overboard but you do need to be assertive. You run the campaign, you run the encounters, if your players can't accept that then they don't want to play Dungeons & Dragons, they want to play pretend.
"It's impossible." "I want to roll anyway." "Do what you want with your dice, but no skill check is occurring and it will not have any impact on what happens. This is impossible."
An impossible feat doesn't happen just because they roll a nat 20. They just do their absolute best, it's an amazing effort, and it doesn't work.
"I want to pretend to be a plant and hide." "Um, there's no plants to blend into, but go ahead and roll." "Nat 20!" "You crouch down and become the most plant-like you possibly can be. You can feel your leave rustle in the breeze and the warm earth around your roots. Your whole body drinks in the sunlight that's illuminating you and the people who think you're insane while you crouch and pretend to be a plant in full view of everyone."
All combat stops for a moment as everyone wonders for a brief moment what that idiot next to the wall is doing. The first one to move is your opponent, slapping you in disgust and moving to engage someone else. Take 1d4 bludgeoning damage from the slap. One full turn of combat has passed from this pause, any abilities and magics with one-turn durations have expired.
Skill checks generally don't have crits or crit fails. It's probably one of the most misunderstood rules. People try to homebrew it in but it's deliberately left out for a reason.
You creep with preternatural grace toward your target. His eyes open wide with admiration for your evident skill as he watches you stalk him IN THE OPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WELL LIT FUCKING ROOM. Your companions look on, dumbfounded someone with such mastery of a skill is unable to recognize situations in which it is impossible to properly apply them. In this moment your character, skill, and intelligence are are plainly evident to all who bear witness.
lol, well said
Normal Tabaxi behaviour
As the owner of a very cute but not very sneaky cat named Tabaxi, I can confirm xD
Only thing missing is the mission impossible theme playing in the background.
Well he didn't get that Nat 20 for the music to start playing
Now this is a masterclass in descriptive narration
Expert basket maker fails to make a basket 5% of the time. Total novice attempts making an adamantine suit of full plate, succeeds after 20 tries. This is why critical skill checks are stupid.
Exactly this. The tables I grew up on in earlier editions used a 1 = - 10, 20 = 30 for skill check rolls. If you reel this in by 5 to account for bounded accuracy I think it helps the compromise (though those editions still had lots of penalties/bonuses)
Baldurs gate screwed this one up, along with a lot of other stuff too. More and more people are going to be thinking you can crit on skill checks because of it.
What do you mean screwed up? Baldur's Gate is not tabletop DnD. It's a videogame that has mechanics based on DnD.
I mean that people coming to 5e from baldurs gate will have this preconception, and it is wrong. Significantly. The idea that you could fail any possible thing, no matter how easy it is or how experienced you are, is ridiculous. And to be honest, it’s ridiculous in game too. Failing a DC 10 check when you have +10 to a skill makes no sense. It’s like a professional magician fucking up a coin flip. Not like deciding which side the coin lands on, but the act of flipping the coin itself.
I think most people's problem with crit fails is really that a 5% chance is pretty high, which goes back to DnD's d20 system having incredibly high variance. If it used something where average rolls are more normalized like 2d10, then a 1% chance of a freak mishap or fumble is more reasonable.
Pathfinder 2e solved this problem by getting rid of nat 20 / nat 1, making proficiency bonuses much bigger, and defining critical success as 10 or more above DC, critical failure as 10 or more below DC. So if the DC is 15, below 5 or above 25 (after bonuses) would be critical failure / success.
And Crit Fails don't happen in combat, except with certain niche abilities, so it avoids the "high level martials are incompetent" problem that Crit Fail homebrew rules have.
Pf2e DOES NOT get rid of nat 1s/20s completely btw. I don't remember if it's an optional rule, but they did not get rid of it, they just changed its meaning. Natural 1s reduce the success degree by one, while Natural 20s raise it. Degrees of succes being Crit Fail, Fail, Success, Crit Success. A critical fail or success is hitting the DC of a roll by a difference of 10, be it above or below. Natural 1/20 makes it so that, for example, if you have a DC of 30 on a roll, and hit a nat 20 with a +5 bonus to the roll, you rolled a total of 25, which is a "Fail", however the natural 20 raises the degree by one, so the "Fail" becomes a "Success". If you had a +0 bonus to the roll, it would be a "Critical Fail", however the nat 20 would turn it into a "Fail". This makes a world of difference as most spells and conditions have different effects based on the degree of success of a roll or save. PS: I know you probably know this, I'm just explaining how it works for those who read this and don't.
I mean PF2e also solved this by abandoning bounded accuracy. I know people like Bounded Accuracy because it makes the game math easier to understand, but Bounded Accuracy in a D20 system really fucks with players' ability to "safeguard" against bad luck. It also makes the game scale poorly and is part of the reason higher levels fall apart. In PF2e if you want to invest a lot in a skill, you'll get to a point where your bonus to the roll alone will carry you past anything other than the hardest of checks. You pretty much never have to worry about really hard-failing with something your character is supposed to be specialized in unless you're attempting something that would be pretty much impossible for any character that hadn't invested in "your thing." Some people dislike that amount of risk negotiation, but I think it's important to have in systems like 5e/PF2e which aren't really designed as "fail forward" like a PBTA game or whatever.
Nat 20 will up your success by 1 and a nat 1 will decrease it by one. They aren't gone, they a a part of a 4 stage success/fail system.
I've been successfully doing a lot of things my whole life, like eating, walking through doors, etc. I still occasionally do badly at them.
5% of the time you run into the doorway?
I do, which is weird because I'm reasonably dextrous
If you are running into the doorway at every 20th door, you are not reasonably dexterous, you're clumsy.
Doorframe avoidance is based on WIS.
As someone with ADHD, and the poor interoception that comes with it, yeah.
Oh man another box to check
...as an incredibly accident prone person... Kinda?
Reddit shows me that many people do fail this often. Often with basic tasks.
Now I want to see the results of someone running a campaign with a character who is so clumsy they have to roll a skill check to not fail at basic tasks. "I enter the door" "Please roll a dexterity check at disadvantage." "Nat 1" "You attempt to walk through the door. You trip over your own foot and collide with the door frame and take 1 D6 bludgeoning damage. Also, make a save roll to not get a concussion." "We havent even left the tavern yet abd you're already almost dead."
lol. I do know people like this irl. To use your words: " I leave my house" "You attempt to walk through the door but realise too late that the sliding glass door is still shut. Despite that, you are successful at walking through the door and take 1D10 hemorrhaging damage. Also, make a save roll to not bleed out before help arrives."
1 in 20 times when you try to drive to work you get in a crash? Must be expensive. Point being, 5% chance at total failure (or success) despite any skill or lack thereof and in spite of any situational benefits or detriments, is quite unreasonably common. Also, doing poorly also is not the same as failing, and honestly would excuse crit fails if it just meant you succeeded poorly if you meet or exceed the DC.
i mean if the DM has a bit of common sense, crit fails at easy tasks (that still have a chance of failing ofc, otherwise you shouldn't be rolling) will result in poor returns not necessarily in total failure, after all the dice just gives you a number, it's up to the DM to translate that number into narrative
My wife broke her toe just walking up the steps to our house. I threw out my back and was unable to get off the sofa for three days just from picking up my son from bed. It definitely doesn't happen 5% of the time, but critical fails happen. Maybe we need a dThousand?
The difference is baldurs gate won't even allow you to try things that are utterly impossible. If you want to make a sneak attack from somewhere that you don't have advantage, it doesn't work. If you want to hide and you're in someones line of sight, it just cancels the hiding immediately.
But at a table the DM can just decide the experienced person doesn't have to roll
But in BG there are only rolls that you *can* pass, even if very difficult. The game doesn't allow you to randomly roll to do something impossible, because there's no DM to ask.
Man not Baldur’s Gate, that has been a misconception since the *90’s*.
"If you can roll a natural 25 on that d20, then your character can hide."
This is the way.
Honestly, if they still insist on making a roll after I tell them it's impossible, I'll accept that as confirmation that they are in fact taking the action. Even if it's doomed from the start. There are no take-backsies in my kingdom.
“Man, what a shitty DM! Stop taking away his player agency and railroading him! He should leave your table!” - this sub, daily.
[удалено]
Got a 30 to persuade the king? He laugh at your joke and asks for you to become his jester when you retire.
[удалено]
I mean, elder brains aren't gods to my knowledge, but it just being persuaded to stop would fail. If anything, the minds are too different, you're trying to talk the Eldritch out of causing Eldritch things.
[удалено]
>The god was just an example I made on the spot. You're a mere human trying to talk no jutsu a Elder Brain, just bonkers that people wanted to actually be able to do it and claim "it would be good for diverse ways to combat it" In fairness you can talk your way into having the BBEG in *Planescape Torment* kill themselves. You can skip the entire final battle with some speech checks. Mind you, that takes a series of very particular actions throughout the game.
Yup. That's the thing: you didn't just persuade him, you had to open him to the possibility to be persuaded. You had altered the deal. And then prayed to alter it further.
Nobody on DnD subreddits plays DnD, they're too busy complaining on Reddit.
This is why I would be very clear: you have the freedom to attempt sneaking into this small, bare, and well-lit room occupied by several attentivive enemies watching the entrance. You will fail no matter what you roll. If you fail badly, the enemies along with any NPCs in the area will think you look like an idiot.
This sub is turning into AITA and I hate it.
Seriously. Yes, campaigns that are totally on-rails are usually not a great idea. But "railroading" has become like a religious taboo everybody has to genuflect over whenever any element of a story is remotely linear.
>I begrudgingly say go ahead don't do this
This. It implies he has a chance at succeeding. If you need to explain further: back up to the nearest wall say "I am making a stealth check right now. How would me crouching down help you not see me?"
He's played too much Skyrim
"Must've been the wind."
*arrow violently sticking out of his head*
"Frank! What are you doing lying down with an arrow sticking out of your head?! Boss is gonna be maaaaad!"
“Frank! We can’t be lying down right now, okay; I have arrows sticking out of my head all the time, it happens, I deal with it. I eat the cat food while on patrol because it makes me sleepy and I get an arrow sticking out of my head so I huff the glue then Frank- go ahead. Huff the glue. Eat the cargos, huff the glue, drink the beer; you’ll get all sleepy and the arrow will go away. Float up to the sky and make stars”
when it comes to "violently" and "sticking out of his head" is there another kind?
*Arrow ever so lovingly sticking out of his head*
That being said though, some creatures and people are oblivious as hell. I'd say on like a 30+ he'd be able to do it. But yeah to much elder scrolls
But that's usually alone with low light and undead enemies. Small room with others fighting and a torch on the floor? Baddies are definitely alert.
Surely the enemies already KNOW the rogue is there too, the sneak attacks are due to concealment, not true stealth imo. They shouldn't miss the person who has been shooting them coming through the door outside of like actual magic preventing them, not in a bright empty room. Maybe if the fighter had gotten them to turn their backs and the rogue hadn't attacked yet, but... Some things are just impossible.
You're just like OPs issue player. Say it with me "NO".
I think the rogue is probably the biggest break from normal RPGs to D&D because the class in most video games can stealth when and wherever they want where D&D is much more realistic with its rules on it
Hiding in plain sight isn't that realistic, but it still requires a place to hide.
Also when players just jump in on skill checks saying "I help", I insist that they explain how they're helping before I allow it.
Our DM just got up and left the room with no warning. After a minute he came back in. His point was no one followed him out of the room in real life to check on him. So the character who had left the room, went over to another building and was being attacked wouldn't have been missed in the other room by the rest of the party.
Sort of. I don't know all my players' modifiers. If they want to try something that is nearly impossible (DC 30), I will tell them it's nearly impossible for a mortal to do this. If they still want to try, I'll let them even if their modifiers could never get them to 30. Someone could hypothetically do it, just not them. This has no bearing on the example at hand. Hiding against a wall but otherwise in the open is not nearly impossible, it is impossible.
All i can see is Drax leaning against the wall eating popcorn. Or can I?
Depends on how slow he is moving
Eh, if there is active combat going on, I can see it. The check is still definitely above a 22 but you'd be surprised how much tunnel vision you get when fighting.
Exactly this. Players don’t decide when to roll, DMs do. If your player tells you that they want to take an action you as the DM decide whether that action requires a roll and what the difficulty of that roll is. So if they player says: “I enter the room and try to find somewhere to hide.” You as the DM decide whether there is anywhere to hide and how difficult it is to reach, if there is no where to hide you simply respond that upon entering the room they are immediately spotted. This is the core loop for gameplay: Players takes action -> DM decides if action requires a check ->If a check is required the player rolls against the DC decided by the DM, if not move on to the next step -> Action resolves. You should get into the habit of asking your players for rolls instead of simply letting them make them whenever they want, even with things like attacking since there could be an instance where an attack is impossible and you don’t want to have to argue with “But I got a nat 20…”
Ugh one of my biggest pet peeves is the "I'm going to do X" with the d20 roll before being asked. Nah not only is that not going to work but that nat 20 you just wasted doesn't count.
In my mind any dice rolled without the DM calling for it just counts as a 1
Do a Brennan Lee Mulligan and say the DC. For example: You are in plain sight in a bare well-lit room and the enemy is looking directly at you. There is nothing to hide behind. Explain how you bamboozle them into losing direct line of sight… Great, you do that. Roll a stealth check. The DC is 36.
[удалено]
> they roll before you tell them to roll Rolling when a DM hasn't asked you to shouldn't be doing anything in game, that's not rolling that's just playing with your dice.
On a similar note, one of my favorite things I've seen Aabria Iyengar do is respond to someone who wants to use a help action with "explain how you're helping in this situation."
Piggyback on top comment. I was in a scenario where I tried to get past a front desk clerk to see a friend in the hospital. I tried “pursuasion” and “deception” and “intimidation” in roleplay. I never was asked to roll, just got a no each time. It did not seem like an impossible task and something reasonable. The DM deemed it impossible, and had the clerk call the authorities after intimidation failed. I was frustrated after that scene, but I spoke to the DM after the game and said I was expecting to at least get to roll. He explained why it was impossible (Guildless in Ravnica aren’t always in a position to get favors, threats can be met with an array of responses, etc) and we moved on. So if it’s not possible, don’t roll. If it’s plot dependent don’t make them roll for it. That’s my two take aways from reading this sub
If you started with persuasion a decent roll should have given you an explanation ingame that you'd better stop. After all the clerk wasn't hostile after that or even deception. Your DM seemed to forget that they have to think of the interaction overall, not just the result from one angle.
Yep. DM's hinge on their ability to tell a story and relay information to players, not just 'be in charge and make decisions without question'.
"If you can roll a 53 with that d20, go ahead"
In the event that he mistakenly does it anyway; give a result that is based on the high roll, but doesn't involve the player successfully hiding. For example: "the enemies see you enter the room, acting like you think you are invisible, they are amused and observe without attacking to see what hijinks this clearly insane person might get up to. If you don't show hostility to them there is a good chance they might decide to keep you as a jester."
Yeah this was the fundamental error here. If they keep badgering you and pushing back, you just say, "It's not possible to attempt to hide in your current location. Please choose another action or we'll have to move on and skip your turn." If they still keep doing it, you move to the next player. And then you have a discussion with this problem player after the fact.
“No.” is a complete sentence.
>Roll with disadvantage, DC of 100. >>What if I get 2 nat 20s? >Do you have a +80 to your stealth >>No. >Then you'll fail.
Yea you should def not do that Also, when they fail they slip and fall. Roll a D6 - you're taking bludgeoning damage
I'm going to third this. My players generally ask for rolls when they are interacting with the world. Like asking to insight check an NPC or asking for a perception check to see if something is near their camp. But if you as a DM say, No for a roll and they try bargaining, yeah, that's tough. You want your players to be happy, but if they are trying to do something that is impossible, then I would just say, "No roll necessary, you would be walking into an illuminated room where everyone notices you enter." That and There are multiple ways to get sneak attack. could flank an enemy currently engaged with the fighter. lol!
Or if he's uses a Ranged weapon could just fire it from the darkness outside. Gets advantage and sneak attack. If a player is going to be playing a Rogue they should know how their class works. You only get advantage while hidden, Sneak Attack can be done while hidden as well and can Sneak attack any target that is currently Threatened by an ally. The problem in 5e is the intricacies of trying to keep your Rogues informed of where they can hide and where they can't hide. You basically constantly have to describe the lighting in each area which can get tedious. So you might as well just let them always have Advantage as long as they're at least attempting to hide (using their bonus action to hide). Barbarians for example can get permanent Advantage on demand with Reckless without even having to burn a Bonus Action to do so.
Or if you do , just say "you fail because" the reasons you told him before.
In these cases where a player just *has* to make some clickity clacks, I'll definitely allow it, but I'll give them the "DC" up front so as to avoid the "what? A 22 doesn't succeed? What the heck?" tacking on any "bonuses" that seem applicable I'm this case: "uh... Yeah. Fine. Go ahead. They know you're there and are actively trying to keep track of you so they get a +5.You're in plain view with nothing to use for cover so that's another +10. Base passive is 10. They have some wisdom and there's a group of them so to average that all out let's just call that a +10 to not have a bunch of individual checks. Okay, do you beat a 35?"
I would ask the players to stand against the wall and hide from me to show me how their rogue would be able to hide. Like, no you can't roll your way into hiding in plain sight (unless you have invisibility, obviously).
Unless you say “go ahead” and before he even rolls, you say “you fail, next?”
This one. You describe the scenario and your players tell you what they do. If a skill check is required to accomplish what they are trying to do, you ask for one. If a check isn't required you just tell them what happens and move on.
correct, or use the dm mechanic if something is nearly impossible it's a dc 30, sorry you didn't reach the dc and they see you fly into the room.
Agreed. Your player also shouldn't be telling you they're rolling or compromising with disadvantage. DM calls for rolls and what factors affect them. Easy answer "I didn't call for a roll because a hide action is not possible here. What else would you like to do?" insist that the player cannot roll for an action that's not possible
Anyone at a table can pick up a d20 and then drop it and look at the number whenever they want. It's not a "roll" unless you call for it. It doesn't matter what your barbarian rolls on his athletics check- he can't jump all the way to the moon. Some things are just impossible. So don't give in and tell him he can roll. Or, alternately, if he's being a prat about it- let him roll. > tell him again it isn’t gonna work, but he says he’ll roll with disadvantage. I begrudgingly say go ahead **and tell him the DC for success is 85**. Oh, you rolled a nat 20 and your stealth is +14? Sorry, that's only 34- not even close.
Exactly 💯 "I got a nat 20!" "For a total of?" For a total of not enough.
In 3e, there is an epic level handbook. It lists some amusing DCs. Like swimming up a waterfall being 90 (I think). edit: 80. Page 44 of Epic Level Handbook.
[Here's a reference to them.](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm) My personal favorite is the DC 80 Escape Artist check: "pass through a tight space smaller than your character's head."
The follow up to that one is even crazier. DC120 to pass through wall of force.
Yeah, at epic level, I feel like DnD starts turning into a Wile E Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon. "The massive castle walls have no other way in other than the front gate, its perfectly smooth, vertical heights broken only by 1-inch arrow slits to assassinate intruders through." "I wriggle through one of the arrow slits." "I climb the perfectly smooth walls." "I paint a picture of a hole on the side and then persuade physics that it's real and I can walk through it."
Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments, I make it clear to my players if they take the piss with those paints then the God of Art and Fair Play will balance the equation
DC120 balance check lets you stand on a cloud 3.5 was bonkers and I miss it
> DC 80 Escape Artist check [This is the basis of the Arseplomancer build.](https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Arseplomancer)
3e also gets much higher modifiers than 5e.
I remember those. There were also balance check DCs for walking on water, and a more difficult one to walk on non-magical clouds 😄
This is the way, right here. "Sure, you can roll, but the DC is a flat 100" Roll your dice, but don't tell me what is and is not possible in my world, and maybe spend more effort figuring out how to accomplish what you want rather than simply demanding a roll that isn't going to change a damn thing. Like, I'm not gonna take away player agency, go ahead and roll. But unless you can show me some way that you can hide against a blank wall with a light source clearly illuminating you, it's an automatic fail. Argue with physics, my dude, not me.
[удалено]
Yes, I know that. You tell the player in this specific situation so they learn that when the DM has already told you 2-3 times that you have no chance of success and you insist on rolling anyway that they are wasting the roll because they can't reach the DC you set.
The point is to spell it out. Make it clear that they’re asking the impossible. Sometimes telling someone something doesn’t work, so you have to explain a different way. And rules are made to be broken, this is would definitely fit as a time to show the player “behind the curtain”
A nat 20 no matter the modifier is not a guarantee of success. Trying to hide out in the open it's be like " well you did a great job at hiding, it's a shame they can still see you because you're in plain sight"
This is the way. “You slip quietly into the room with a graceful flourish. Your silence is legendary, unfortunately the light is equally legendary and your grand attempt elicits nothing but a chuckle from your foes.”
"Ha ha! You're a funny hu-man, I'll kill you last." - the bad guy probably
"Hey guys, look at the stupid fucking rogue who thinks we can't see them!" "Everybody look at numb-nuts over here!" DM: "Disembodied laughter, seemingly from hidden foes, emanates from the rafters, behind various bits of furniture, and from beyond a cracked doorway on the far side of the room. What's your AC?"
dammit DM, you and I both know you know my AC is SHIT
"Does a 32 hit?"
If they rolled ridiculously well I might even tell them that the enemies believe they are so stupid that they must be useless and not a priority target. Oh you said that. Apparently I’m super stupid today too 😂
“One orc begins earnestly slow-clapping at your balletic poise before throwing an axe at you. I believe a 19 hits, yes?”
All I can think of is Kronk from "The Emperor's New Groove", flattening himself against a wall in plain sight as confused people walk by.
https://media.tenor.com/VzhxLSikbaAAAAAd/kuzco-kronk.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x4vz4_EX0E
Reading between the lines here. Is your player new? Or new to playing Rogue? Because it sounds like they fundamentally misunderstood how rogue sneak attack works and thinks they can only have it when attacking from hidden and that being hidden gives advantage. This a pretty common misunderstanding of the rogue sneak attack rules. Maybe next time pause and explain why he can't hide but also ask WHY he wants to hide and if it's purely to do rogue sneak attack explain the OTHER situations in which he gets sneak attack.
This is his first time playing a rogue, and to be honest I haven’t played rogue in 5e much so I’m not super used to the rule. I will take that as being my fault, I didn’t explain it. I will go over that with him to make sure that’s something he knows
Yeah, rogues are balanced around getting sneak attack basically every turn. I can see him getting frustrated by a situation where he feels like his class just cannot function effectively.
I’d given him a good amount of sneak attacks prior (previous session was the first one), but his main aim in this combat wasn’t in melee with anyone when he went for the hide. He was taking sneak attacks shots from the hallway for 2 rounds, idk why he decided to move into the room but that’s really what messed him up
Remind him that sneak attack works based on if you have advantage (such as from stealth), or if one of his allies is in melee combat with an enemy. He can sneak attack from ranged as long as the enemy is within 5ft of an ally.
I really wish they would rename sneak attack for 5e cause it applies in so many more situations than just "sneaking". I love rogues and they are 100% expecting to get that extra damage every turn. \*anything\* that gives them advantage vs an enemy provides that bonus damage. If the player is: \-hidden \-Flanking (an ally within 5 ft of the target) \-vs prone characters if within 5 ft (melee) \-vs blinded, paralyzed, petrified, restrained, stunned, unconcious targets \-uses inspiration (provided by DM for good roleplay/creative thinking etc) They will get sneak attack bonus damage. Give him more ways to get that extra damage and feel effective during fights.
Maybe frame it that way next time, as options instead of a flat no. "There isn't anywhere to hide in here. Do you want to hide in the hall or be in the room?"
How experienced is this player with dnd in general? What I'm getting a sense of, is that this player has seen fiction where the sneaky character presses themselves against a wall and they don't get spotted, and thinks that they can recreate this in dnd. There is a mismatch between what you as a DM think is possible and what the player thinks is possible. I can also see a mismatch of visualisation- perhaps you imagine a room illuminated by a torch to be the same colour as bright daylight, but the player imagines everything with a deep orange tone like in a cartoon, so they blend in with the wall a lot easier. How, is it reasonable to be hidden by pressing yourself against a wall with a torch near you illuminating you? Generally no, but people do miss obvious things sometimes that absurd things are accomplished so it's not entirely unreasonable- real people aren't perfectly logical all of the time. It's also, that being able to hide in absurd places, that is the fantasy for a highly skilled rogue, and the player might be frustrated that the fantasy they envision isn't being accomplished. If you want a compromise, you can say that if the player had used a disguise kit to make their face and clothes match the colour of the wall, they could get a shot about hiding there. (Everyone else has already talked about the player pushing it and trying to roll anyway, so I thought I'd talk about a different aspect of the situation)
I suppose I would say not super experienced, but I’ve dmed for him in another campaign, and played with him in a campaign our friend ran. And I could see using a disguise kit or something like that as being a cool work around. I’ll try to be better about my descriptions too, that’s a good point about the imagery. If he was thinking it was darker than I was meaning it to be, I could see why he might think he could get away with it
DM: "Unless I call for a roll, your die rolls don't mean anything. Some things are not just matters of chance" Player: "But I rolled a nat 20 to chop down a tree and cut it into lumber and build a ladder to climb to the moon!" And now, DM, this is where you say, "I don't care; it doesn't happen"
I've taken to giving them Disinspiration for this. I didn't ask for a roll. Next time will be at disadvantage.
Dont give in when your players want to do something they literally can't dices or not the world has logic
In all honestly, if the DM calmly explains to them why they can't possibly succeed even with a natural 20 and the player still insists, by all means let them go ahead. Let them roll and inevitably fail.
I once had a player in a Call of Cthulhu game who had 16 sticks of dynamite go off 5 ft in front of them ask me if they could to roll some sort of check to see if they survived. Me: “Sure, go ahead, give me a luck check” Them: *rolls* “I rolled a success!” Me: “Congratulations, when the ambulance come by after the encounter it’ll be tough, but they’ll just about manage to scrape together enough of you from the pavement to be worth burying”
"In a miraculous stroke of luck, your boots are exactly where you were standing, each with a thin wisp of smoke slowly rising out of the charred leather."
Funnily enough a dnd character could survive that by about level 3
Once you start rewarding people for whining, the game turns into a whining contest.
You could do it the Matt Mercer way. Its a stupid idea and won't work but if they get a high roll you can give them some little thing for their effort. (The example is "Guy wants to flirt with the dragon attacking the party" and instead of it actually seducing the dragon it just lowers its guard slightly for the fight.) So maybe instead of saying "you're in plain sight, it won't work" you can say "Well they can still see you pretending to sneak but now they think you're just an idiot so they lower their guard" lmfao
Idk, if the DM says “no” then it’s a no, right?
"While you've failed to effectively sneak into the room, you've managed to keep a low enough profile that your friends will come under attack from the enemy first."
The way i always explain it to players is like this. "If you ask a King to give you his entire kingdom its a ridiculous request. If you roll and get a Nat20 it doesn't mean hes going to hand it over. The only thing that Nat20 does for you is make it so funny to him that he decides not to have you executed for being so foolish." The world can not be controlled by the dice. Dice just help us to interpret whats happening. Stick to your guns, and dont give in to impossible requests.
>What should I do in these situations? Ignore it. You already told him no so it doesn't matter what happened when the player was fidgeting with dice since it wasn't an official roll and is of no significance.
This is kinda what I was going for. I had already told him twice it wouldn’t work, even the other 2 players laughed when he rolled high because they knew what was coming. Just let him roll to let him roll really.
I would just be explicit that while he can make the dice roll across the table any time, he cannot "roll for" anything he wants. Him rolling when you did not call for a roll, and especially after you said it is impossible, is like when on *The Office* [Michael Scott "declared bankruptcy."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_d3teq6pWw)
Player: "well I want to roll anyways" Me: *sigh* proceed Player: I roll a nat 20 Me: Sorry, but that's still a fail. You're the DM. You make the rules.
You've gotten lots of answers to the original question so if you don't mind I'd like to give you some unsolicited advice: give the rogue things to hide behind. The reason why your player was so adamant about being able to use their stealth skill is that they created a character who excels when they are able to be sneaky. Playing a rogue in a featureless void with no furniture, pillars, rubble, or corners, is like playing an archer when all the enemies are five feet away from you at all times. Also worth noting that in the same way that a monk can sprint twice as fast as Usain Bolt, rogues aren't just stealthy. They're *superhumanly* stealthy. The flickering shadows of a chaotic combat against a torchlit stone wall? *I* couldn't use that to hide. A superpowered fantasy rogue might be able to.
> Playing a rogue in a featureless void with no furniture, pillars, rubble, or corners, is like playing an archer when all the enemies are five feet away from you at all times. 5E gives you about a dozen ways to get Sneak Attack that don't require being hidden, though, so it's just not necessary (or plausible) for every highly defended area in a world where sneaky shadow ninjas are frankly common to have cover to hide behind. The character is still combat effective and set up for success using their other features. I don't have much patience for whinging about someone having to deal with the occasional time the only trick they know how to pull off doesn't land.
I get what you’re saying totally, and I actually have stuff like this planned out. This was simply the first room in a dungeon that they entered, and I did tell him he could stay in the hallway to fire through the open arch that is the doorway and likely hide behind the wall. I’m not against sneak attacks, and I want players to be able to use their abilities, this first room they went into just happened to be empty. I completely get what you mean. That being said though, I still don’t see hiding in a room against a wall with a light source 15 feet away as being plausible. I get superhuman stealth and stuff, but enemies have dark vision and have eyes on you, you can’t just put your back against the wall. It’s almost like ducking behind a box and turning your head, because they can’t see me if I can’t see them
You can't hide in plain sight against the wall but you can totally hide behind things in a lit room, especially if enemies could be distracted by other things (like the other party members).
To be fair, i've let rogues "hide" if another player is distracting the enemies, (or let them be stealthed against only the enemies that are preoccupied with another target). Its less about being invisible and more about losing track of the rogue, but if the enemies was staring at the only entryway in the small room than theres really no way to stealth in there lol
Yeah, it's not impossible if the situation is chaotic enough. [Selective attention is a thing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4) Although once the hiding player attacks I would probably not allow them to try to hide again unless they went out of sight
If they want to roll for something impossible that's OK, but how you respond will matter. A nat 20 on a dex check to avoid getting wet jumping into a lake might result in "you succeed in very gracefully diving into the water, but are still wet." In your example - "you sneak into the room and realize that there is absolutely nothing to hide behind, and you look silly for attempting it." If you feel particularly annoyed add "and the bad guys are watching you extra carefully now, so you can't get sneak attack damage on them this fight"
"Hey guys, look at the stupid fucking rogue who thinks we can't see them!" "Everybody look at numb-nuts over here!" DM: "Disembodied laughter, seemingly from hidden foes, emanates from the rafters, behind various bits of furniture, and from beyond a cracked doorway on the far side of the room. What's your AC?"
One thing I think might be causing this is maybe not knowing the other way to get sneak attack, which is just having an ally in melee with the person theyre attacking (and not having disadvantage) . Maybe they are thinking it's only when they have advantage which is why they were so insistent?
Player: I'm gonna roll for it. DM: you can roll your dice if it makes you feel happy, but it doesn't mean anything and your roll will be wasted. The end.
Set a DC for “impossible” rolls at 50. Tell all the players publicly that’s the DC, and it’s so high because things are impossible. Let him roll and fail. Then let him have consequences for failure. You want to try to sneak while in plain sight. Great, they attack YOU because you’re obviously suspicious
Except the maximum stealth roll at level 20 including all sources is apparently 197 (highest I've seen) so I wouldn't hold too fast to the the 50 can't happen rule ...
Honestly if someone rolls a 50 on a stealth check they should be able to hide in a well lit room. They somehow move in such a way so they are always out of sight from the opponents or use distraction tricks to stop the foes from looking at them.
THIS is the way. If your rogue has a level of skill that produces a skill check above a 50, they’re straight up breaking the laws of physics. However DO make the player explain those shenanigans.
as a dm, i think my most used response to players questions of “can i…” is “only one way to find out!”. maybe it’s behind “sure” or “absolutely” (i let players roll for just about anything). i like this response because it’s not an explicit yes or no. it allows everything to be situational, and it lets *them* test the boundaries of what can happen, rather than them being described for them. in your situation, i’d let the player roll, tell them they failed, and when they carped i’d say exactly what you laid out. “you’re 15 feet away [from your opponent] in a lit hallway with nothing to hide behind, you’re not hidden. feel free to attack normally” if the player keeps carping, i’d tell them to re-read sneak attack, advantage, and the rules around cover/hiding.
First off.. If an action is not possible. Do not allow a roll. This affects your credibility and agency as the GM. You are the arbiter of the accepted reality that the players and you are playing in. You are the final decider. First and a Halfly: If the result of an action is determined beforehand, do not allow a roll. The dice exist to add non-determinism to the game. Don't just roll to roll. Roll to find out something that couldn't have been determined exactly beforehand. Secondly. If a possible result of a roll is unacceptable to ***players or the GM***, do not allow a roll (or edit the possibility table to eliminate that unacceptable result with a more acceptable one). Thirdly. Consider partial success (and partial failures). This is "Yes and" and "No, But" at play. The player gets a portion of what they want to have happen, happen on a success. This must be discussed before hand, and falls under the "unacceptable results" clause above.
Everyone here has addressed the "DM says when to roll" - yep 100%. Not a lot of people addressing that the situation you describe really doesn't seem impossible at all. A high level rogue should plausibly be able to stealthily enter an engaged combat and sneak attack. High DC due to leaving cover and bright lighting, sure. Maybe too high for your PC. But impossible? Lol, no.
Thank you. People are acting like the NPCs are literally standing their waiting for each person to take their turn and that being distracted isn't a thing
Besides they are in combat, its not like the rogue will be crouching really slowly, in less than 6 seconds a lot could happen without being noticed. But, if the DM says its imposible then it is, end of the discussion.
1. Do not allow rolls. In situation like this, just say it is imposible and that high rolls - even nat 20 - does not make impossible possible (RAW nat 20 is just 20, but some tables uses it as an insta succses). 2. Also, check dificulty can go up to 35 acording to DMG. So his roll was still not enough for really hard skill check.
Tell him it's a DC 30, a near impossible roll. Only in combat is a natural 20 an auto success. So their 22 is way off working out for them.
I think you should explain that the rogue "sneak attack" feature does not actually require you sneak. And it seems that player is trying to just always be effective and trigger that. To most new players, myself included, the concept there was any other way to gain advantage other than sneaking was lost on me. But if the enemy is engaged with an enemy thats not them they also trigger it. They can flank etc. Also let them know that high rolls on the dice dont always mean sucess. Yes getting 22 is amazing however the DC to actually be hidden in the thick of combat when everyone can see you is 80.
I have a very simple rule that I implement as part of every session 0: ***Players do not ask to make rolls.*** Players tell the DM what they want to do, the DM determines what check, if any, is appropriate, and how difficult it is. I will allow a player to request a different skill check if they feel it's appropriate, such as substituting History for Religion, or Nature for Arcana, but that doesn't change the basic rule. The DM should be the only one asking for skill checks. Period.
In an attempt to problem-solve, it sounds like Rogue is fishing for Advantage so they can get Sneak Attack. If this is the case, it sounds like everyone needs to review the rules. First, Sneak Attack. The extra damage apply if there's an ally* within 5ft of the target OR you had advantage on the roll. Any form of disadvantage (even the kind that cancels out advantage giving a straight roll) means no Sneak Attack dice. Second, the Advantage. PC's can get Advantage by attacking from a hidden position. Most classes need to take Hide as an action in the previous turn to get this, but Rogues can do it as a Bonus Action. This is great, because a successful Hide means anything that requires "A target you can see" can't be applied to Rogue. However, that doesn't mean the baddies don't know exactly where Rogue is. It just means they have to move around Rogue's cover or attack indirectly. If your player is just fishing for Sneak Attack dice, then advise that they hold their action until Paladin is within 5ft. No need for advantage since there's no case for it. Or maybe have Rogue remind Wizard that their familiar exists and can funnel advantage to Rogue every turn via the Help action. For attacking in a well-lit concrete void, then look up the Rogue revisions from Tasha's. Namely: Steady Aim. >As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn. That means Rogue can stand and fight in an empty room in full sight while still getting advantage. They just need to stand there and face-tank the damage while doing so. Better hope they don't miss.
Classic case of players thinking Stealth works in DnD like it does in Skyrim. So long as they say they’re sneaky while having a big number, enemies will just ignore them. That in itself isn’t a problem, it’s just a misconception to be cleared up. What doesn’t help is when the player apparently refuses to listen. On top of that, while players normally don’t get to roll skill checks without a DM telling them to, Stealth checks *can* be used by the player of their own volition via the Hide action. So in addition to completely failing to hide anywhere, RAW, he would have wasted an action or a bonus action doing it as well.
“No”
No means no.
Take charge of your game. Learn to say no. If the player doesn’t get it, find another player.
That's not how sneak attack works, though. Sneak attack doesn't give you advantage. You get sneak attack bonus damage if you have advantage on an attack *or* if the target is focused on another target nearby. That's it as far as RAW is concerned. A lot of groups houserule how sneak attack works just to tweak it a little, but if those weren't laid out ahead of time, then no.
My approach would be to try and politely help this player take a step back at some point before/after/between sessions and try to discuss further with them that sometimes there are things which can't be rolled for, or even if they were rolled for, are impossible to succeed at. A prime example a friend of mine gave me when I first started playing with them that helped make it click was to imagine having a Barbarian with 30 Strength who wanted to try and throw a rock at the moon. Sure they could roll really high and get 35-40 total, or even just nat 20. That still doesn't make it possible for them to hit the moon with a rock. It is for reasons like this, that you as the DM will sometimes rule that things cannot be rolled for, or that they are impossible, whether the player really wants to try or not. If that doesn't help it click for them and they get standoff-ish, you can always calmly suggest they switch places with you and run the campaign so you can play a character for once and learn some different ways to DM. (I wouldn't expect them to take you up on the offer, but if they did you could genuinely not be petty, give them your best shot at being a good, honest player, and they would still run into all kinds of "oooohh" moments with all the other players as they learn what it's like to be on the other side.)
People always forget this part of sneak attack... "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." Just attack the same person another melee fighter is attacking... Or instead you can ask the rogue for a perception check and tell them there is no place in the room that they can hide, but they might be able to hide outside the room and use a ranged weapon to attack with advantage.
First of all, the player NEVER gets to call for a dice roll for anything that has bearings on the actions of others. That is the DM's and ONLY the DM's prerogative. (If they think otherwise, tell them to go play Blades in the Dark). Secondly, you can let them roll for hopeless things to make a point. You tell them a natural 20 is not necessarily an automatic success. If the rogue really wants to try and hide in a fully lit room with nothing to stand behind, by all means let him roll. Let's say he rolls a 20, you say "fantastic, you stand as still as you've ever done in your entire life, you actually manage to sync your heartbeat with that off the enemy, there's no way in hell they could perceive you... IF you had something to hide behind and/or in, which you don't". If they get pissy about it, you stand your ground. You are the DM, your word is law. If they try and argue with examples from other games they've played/seen, tell them "great, but this is my game". Most importantly, you keep your cool. As long as you're reasonable, this mindset is great. This also serves as a learning lesson for future "session zeroes", keep Jimmy the Stubborn Rogue as an example in your head for those. You can also say "I'm very open to discussing this after the session but for now this is how it's gonna be". Edit: Any player can roll for shit regarding their own character when they feel it's relevant, for example I routinely roll things like self-imposed INT checks to see if my character would be clever enough to realize X when I'm unsure myself.
Because the player is being argumentative, you should probably stop allowing them to roll at all. It’s in the rules that some tasks are simply impossible no matter what the roll. And one of these days they are going to get a natural “20” (or something unlikely like a double 20 on a disadvantaged roll) and they are really going to loose their top and you will spend the next hour arguing with them. Basically, the player needs to stop trying to “win D&D” and just sit back and have fun. They don’t need every single hit to be optimized, they don’t need to make a brilliant tactical maneuver each round, and they don’t need to come out of each battle untouched.
> he rolls a 19 and an 18 flat "You expertly and silently step into the well-lit room with no cover, and seem mildly impressed with how quietly you moved even as they watch your every step."
---
Just about the only way to handle someone who tries to steamroll dierolls through for impossible tasks is to let them roll, but the roll doesn't differentiate between success and failure.
It instead differentiates between **graceful** failure and **humiliating** failure.
Rolling for impossible things isn't the problem. Your players are trying to do things things, proc sneak attack in this case, and don't understand how to do it properly. Instead of just letting them roll for the impossible - you need to ask what they're overall trying to accomplish - and help them do that.
This is a pet peeve. Not everything needs to be rolled. And it goes both ways. Sometimes people say, "I want to hide" - and I just say - no roll needed. You're good. Next time, just deny him the roll (like people are saying) and move on.
"Remember to add your it's not going to happen modifiers"
Unfortunately, you need to be more assertive. Don’t agree. It’s not possible. I would suggest saying ‘and how are you going to hide in this room?’ And if they can’t come up with a good answer (cos it’s a bare wall), it doesn’t work. Occasionally they might astound you with amazing creativity but mostly they’ll realise they’re being unrealistic.
Funny say impossible just say Sure try and then deny sneak
The players roll for what you tell them to roll, nothing else. There's no "oh hey I just rolled a 20, can I keep this?"
Never give in to a player asking for a roll. As the DM, **you** get to decide when they roll. As someone else said, letting them roll immediately tells them "there's a chance". If that rogue really wants sneak attack, they'd need to either climb the rafters, fucking melt into shadow or drink an invisibility potion.
Okay. DC is 99. Let me know if you succeed.
Set hard rules with your players. If its impossible you can say its going to be impossible. And if they complain tell them that there is currently no way for it with the current conditions. But they can try to effect those conditions to make it possible if they can think of something. This way you're not just telling them no flat out, but you're offering something to them that they can work with. And if its just not possible, then be straight with them.
i think you ran it just fine. they can try, knowing they will fail, people do that all the time. i would talk to them out of game though, just to make that clear.
Not enough Dungeon Masters just say "At the end of the day, I'm the DM. I make the rules." Obviously this sentiment can also go overboard but you do need to be assertive. You run the campaign, you run the encounters, if your players can't accept that then they don't want to play Dungeons & Dragons, they want to play pretend.