D&D 5E Moving out of concealment to attack - when is stealth broken?

[DND_Reborn]

A common scenario. A character is currently in darkness and hidden. The character moves 20 ft towards an enemy, and after the first 10 ft of movement, is no longer in the darkness. They then proceed to make two attacks. They complete their move by moving back into the darkness.

At what point does the character lose the benefit of stealth?

1) As soon as they first move out of the darkness. None of their attacks get advantage.
2) The first attack gets advantage, then they lose stealth.
3) Both attacks get advantage, then they lose stealth.
4) They maintain stealth the entire time

Ok, I have to make an assumption here: when you are no longer in darkness, the target cannot see you (has its back turned, etc.), right? Otherwise, if they can see you coming at all, after 5 feet you lose the advantage (the 5-feet rule of thumb was JC's advice) and none of your attacks would have advantage.

So, assuming they still don't see you coming....

1) If they see you coming and you have to move more than 5-feet (IMO and I agree with JC on this one), no.
2) YES.
3) No. As soon as you make an attack, you give yourself away unless you have a feature that overrides this.
4) No.

Also, when you say "move back into darkness", if you mean actual darkness, unless the target has darkvision they can't see you. Now, this does NOT mean you are "hidden", you have to make an opposed Dex (Stealth) check versus their Wis (Perception), they win ties, to be hidden again.

 

[Stalker0]

Since this point has caused a lot of differing opinions let’s look at the scenario where the enemy is aware of the character. The character is hidden at the beginning through a successful hide check in darkness, but the enemy is at least aware they are around.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Since this point has caused a lot of differing opinions let’s look at the scenario where the enemy is aware of the character. The character is hidden at the beginning through a successful hide check in darkness, but the enemy is at least aware they are around.

Is the DM ruling the target is surprised? That has some impact IMO.

If yes, then you move out attack once with advantage, attack without advantage, and move back. You can use your bonus action to hide. Since the target is surprised (and you won initiative) the target cannot take reactions so no OA against you. If you lost initiative, the target can make an OA when you move back to hide. Since you can't disengage and hide (both would use your bonus action), hopefully the DM ruled surprise.

Otherwise, if the target is not surprised (since the enemy is aware you are around), then no advantage. If they see you coming, you make the attacks normally. When you move back into the darkness you can attempt to hide if you a bonus action to do it. Since they aren't surprised, they can use their reaction to get an OA on you.

If you are using the optional facing rules, the target might have to use its reaction to change its facing to see you coming. This would negate any advantage you have, but since it used its reaction to change facing, you wouldn't have to worry about an OA at least.

For you to gain advantage, you have to decide if moving into light exposes you enough for the target to see you before you attack. As I mentioned, JC's advice is a 5-foot move is ok to maintain the "hidden" element, but more than that (if the target sees you) and you are no longer hidden. I agree with that but others will run it how they want.

 

[jgsugden]

If you listen to the infamous Crawford interview, a lot of this makes more sense.

 

[Oofta]

If you listen to the infamous Crawford interview, a lot of this makes more sense.

I don't think you even really need to go past the statement at 10:45 or so when intent of the rules is clearly stated. "We very intentionally, in 5th edition have put stealth in the domain of the DM."

So any of this "My way of ruling is the right way because it's RAI" is true. Just like when someone else rules differently for their table it is also true.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, the ambiguity is intentional because some tables, like with other aspects of the game, want varying levels of detail/ complexity. So much depends on if you use minis, ToM, or something in between, and how you handle lighting, facing, and other elements that can all influence stealth rulings.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I've never had a melee stealth character played in my games yet in the 5e era, but my ruling would be pretty leniant towards allowing a person to sneak up on and get a HIDDEN attack against a foe, especially up until the first time they attacked.

Sticking to strict RAW limits a lot of things it's fairly easy to do in real life that allows to stay hidden because of the lack of facing. It's trivial for me to sneak up on co-workers while they are talking to another person or working on their PC. In some cases I shuffle my feet and make a bit of noise as a warning and I STILL end up scaring them.

I feel the rogue is meant to be able to do things like physically sneak up on something and deliver a "backstab" in the lore much much better than myself should be able to, so I don't want to make it impossible to do on the battlemat.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't think you even really need to go past the statement at 10:45 or so when intent of the rules is clearly stated. "We very intentionally, in 5th edition have put stealth in the domain of the DM."

So any of this "My way of ruling is the right way because it's RAI" is true. Just like when someone else rules differently for their table it is also true.

For the most part, true. They do, however, establish a framework upon which the DM is to make decisions. It is a minimal framework, but under RAW, the framework needs to be respected. Thus, there are some clearly right answers under the RAW, but there is a lot where the DM has to make a ruling for their game because there are just too many factors for the rules as written to address.

If, for example, I went to play in a game with a new DM and they gave my rogue a Cloak of Elvenkind, I would expect that the DM would be following the rules for stealth and perception, and for the cloak. That would mean I would get to roll stealth, with advantage, when hiding (from visual inspection, at least), and that this would be opposed by the passive perception of my foes, at disadvantage (meaning at 5 less than their normal passive perception) unless someone was actively looking for me - and as long as I retained some degree of concealment (whether from dim light, fog, an obstruction, etc... I would expect to stay hidden. I feel like that is laid out by the books, and a DM that is going to differ from that should let players know in advance.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, the ambiguity is intentional because some tables, like with other aspects of the game, want varying levels of detail/ complexity. So much depends on if you use minis, ToM, or something in between, and how you handle lighting, facing, and other elements that can all influence stealth rulings.

So I'll apologize in my OP because I don't think I'm making my request clear. This isn't about lighting or facing or is the enemy aware, etc. So let me try to make it even clearer.

We are in a battle, maybe the battle has been been going on a few rounds. The enemy is not surprised. One of the players moved into darkness last round, and used an action to hide (and was successful on their hide check vs the enemy's passive surprise). The player is hidden, no debate on that one, everyone at the table agrees.

So the questions I am trying to nail down are:

1) Does starting hidden allow you to stay hidden through your move....or is it the second you leave the darkness you lose the condition.
2) Assuming the answer to 1 is yes....once you make an attack, does that drop the condition of hidden....or could I still get the second attack with the benefits of being hidden?

 

[Charlaquin]

So I'll apologize in my OP because I don't think I'm making my request clear. This isn't about lighting or facing or is the enemy aware, etc. So let me try to make it even clearer.

We are in a battle, maybe the battle has been been going on a few rounds. The enemy is not surprised. One of the players moved into darkness last round, and used an action to hide (and was successful on their hide check vs the enemy's passive surprise). The player is hidden, no debate on that one, everyone at the table agrees.

So the questions I am trying to nail down are:

1) Does starting hidden allow you to stay hidden through your move....or is it the second you leave the darkness you lose the condition.

You are no longer hidden from an enemy as soon as it can see you. It's up to the DM to decide if an enemy can see you. Generally, I would rule that in a combat situation, you can be seen as long as you are in the enemy's line of sight and not heavily concealed or behind total cover, so you would be seen as soon as you leave the darkness. But, other DMs might rule otherwise, and the RAW supports them in doing so.

2) Assuming the answer to 1 is yes....once you make an attack, does that drop the condition of hidden....or could I still get the second attack with the benefits of being hidden?

The Skulker feat specifically allows you to remain hidden after missing with a ranged attack, so the implication I get from that is that you would not remain hidden if you:
a.) hit or missed with a melee attack
b.) hit with a ranged attack
c.) missed with a ranged attack and did not have the Skulker feat.

But again, it's explicitly up to the DM to decide the conditions for hiding, so a DM who ruled differently would be supported by RAW in doing so.