D&D 5E Rogues are Awesome. Is it the Tasha's Effect?

[fearsomepirate]

If you're rolling to see whether your attack hit, the attack had to have happened first.

If the attack has already happened, damage has already been rolled. The d20 roll doesn't represent any particular moment in time. In melee, it doesn't even represent an individual strike of the weapon.

No attack, no roll to hit. I doubt they figured that they needed to specify that.

No attack, no peeking, drawing your bow, or aiming. They didn't feel the need to specify that (they did actually specify that loading a weapon is part of the attack), and yet here we are, arguing over whether there's some kind of preparatory phase that happens before the Action itself to determine whether or not you're hidden.

They use the same phrase they use everywhere else, "when you make an attack." They've even gone on a podcast to explain it. Just bear with me, suppose that they intended to express that in the following sequence of events:

Player: I use a bonus action to hide in the shrubbery [rolls high].
GM: You are now hidden.
Player: Okay, I attack with my hand crossbow

that the player is to understand that he attacks with advantage. How do you think Mearls, Crawford, etc, would have expressed themselves in the PHB if that's what they meant? Because if the argument is that this situation is not at all what they had in mind by "If you are hidden when you make an attack," how do you think they would have expressed it?

 

[Maxperson]

If the attack has already happened, damage has already been rolled. The d20 roll doesn't represent any particular moment in time. In melee, it doesn't even represent an individual strike of the weapon.

Yep. Damage is also part of the attack. The following are part of making the attack. There is no in game time in-between step 1 and step 3 where you roll damage.

"1 . Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's
range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether
the target has cover and whether you have advantage
or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells,
special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties
or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause
special effects in addition to or instead of damage"

Once you roll to hit, you have attacked(Resolve the Attack phase) and are now rolling damage if you hit.

No attack, no peeking, drawing your bow, or aiming. They didn't feel the need to specify that (they did actually specify that loading a weapon is part of the attack), and yet here we are, arguing over whether there's some kind of preparatory phase that happens before the Action itself to determine whether or not you're hidden.

I'm not talking about any sort of preparation period. Once you roll to attack, you have already come out, aimed(determined targets) and are now in the attack resolution portion where you roll damage if you it. You can't target something prior to getting to a point where you can see it.

 

[auburn2]

All of the WOTC rulings on the topic disagree with how you're judging these rules. Which is fine. But, just so you know, that doesn't appear to be how most people run it due to those rulings from WOTC folks. [And of note, your ruling meaningfully nerfs the Lightfoot Halfling hiding ability]

And, again, this appears to be why WOTC made Steady Aim - to smooth out the rulings at different tables.

No they don't. The rules are clear: PHB page 177:

"you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly ..... In combat most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature it usually sees you..."

Further to get technical being "hidden" does not give you advantage it is being "unseen" that gives you advantage. PHB p. 195: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it"

So if your definition of being "hidden" includes in a case where you are seen (i.e. sticking your head out from behind a wall) then RAW you do not get advantage on the attack. Call yourself still "hidden" if you want, but nothing in the rules say or suggest you should have advantage on that attack.

Finally I will add that if your arguement is the Rogue is still "unseen" because he just sticks his head out for a short time to attack, well that is the case for everyone behind a wall who sticks his head out and attacks, so then being "hidden" is really irrelevant.

A few more questions:
1. if the Rogue is still unseen and hidden behind an obstacle (tree, wall, overturned table) when he makes an attack then how can he see whoever he is shooting at? If the enemy can't see him then he can't see the enemy right? Moreover if he can't see the enemy he is shooting at doesn't the Rogue have disadvantage on the attack? You can't have it both ways, either he is unseen or not. This is not true in all cases but it is in the ones we are debating about - Rogue goes behind a wall and hides and then comes out next round and is still unseen.

2. What is the purpose of the skulker feat? Can't all creatures hide like that under your interpretation? Same with wood elf mask of the wild. Why is this even an ability?

 

[Mistwell]

No they don't. The rules are clear: PHB page 177:

"you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly ..... In combat most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature it usually sees you..."

Further to get technical being "hidden" does not give you advantage it is being "unseen" that gives you advantage. PHB p. 195: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it"

So if your definition of being "hidden" includes in a case where you are seen (i.e. sticking your head out from behind a wall) then RAW you do not get advantage on the attack. Call yourself still "hidden" if you want, but nothing in the rules say or suggest you should have advantage on that attack.

Finally I will add that if your arguement is the Rogue is still "unseen" because he just sticks his head out for a short time to attack, well that is the case for everyone behind a wall who sticks his head out and attacks, so then being "hidden" is really irrelevant.

A few more questions:
1. if the Rogue is still unseen and hidden behind an obstacle (tree, wall, overturned table) when he makes an attack then how can he see whoever he is shooting at? If the enemy can't see him then he can't see the enemy right? Moreover if he can't see the enemy he is shooting at doesn't the Rogue have disadvantage on the attack? You can't have it both ways, either he is unseen or not. This is not true in all cases but it is in the ones we are debating about - Rogue goes behind a wall and hides and then comes out next round and is still unseen.

2. What is the purpose of the skulker feat? Can't all creatures hide like that under your interpretation? Same with wood elf mask of the wild. Why is this even an ability?

I linked to both the tweets from Crawford and a complete LONG interview with Crawford on this subject. You're free to disagree with him of course, but it's not like I can argue it better than the guy who wrote the rules!

I am not arguing the rogue is still unseen after he attacks (I don't know why people keep claiming that's my position but it's not). I am saying you remain hidden until after your attack from hiding is resolved as either a hit or miss. That is the rule. Crawford goes to great lengths to state that over and over again in many ways. Just listen to his interview.

It's not "my" interpretation. It's definitely the official WOTC ruling on the question.

As for Skulker it let's you REMAIN hidden if you miss, it let's you hide in lightly obscured which includes dim light which means you can hide in plain sight from a creature using their darkvision to see, and it let's you see with darkvision without a penalty. It's a powerful feat, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that WOTC says you can attack at range from hiding and you only lose the hidden condition AFTER your attack either hits or misses.

 

[auburn2]

I linked to both the tweets from Crawford and a complete LONG interview with Crawford on this subject. You're free to disagree with him of course, but it's not like I can argue it better than the guy who wrote the rules!

I am not arguing the rogue is still unseen after he attacks (I don't know why people keep claiming that's my position but it's not). I am saying you remain hidden until after your attack from hiding is resolved as either a hit or miss. That is the rule. Crawford goes to great lengths to state that over and over again in many ways. Just listen to his interview.

It's not "my" interpretation. It's definitely the official WOTC ruling on the question.

As for Skulker it let's you REMAIN hidden if you miss, it let's you hide in lightly obscured which includes dim light which means you can hide in plain sight from a creature using their darkvision to see, and it let's you see with darkvision without a penalty. It's a powerful feat, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that WOTC says you can attack at range from hiding and you only lose the hidden condition AFTER your attack either hits or misses.

I am not saying you claim that he is unseen after the attack, I am saying that you claim the Rogue is hidden while he is in plain view of his enemy. The attack is irrelevant to what I am talking about. It doesn't matter whether he sticks his head out and throws a dagger or if he sticks his head out for some other reason, once he sticks his head out he is no longer hidden and if that happens before he throws a dagger he does not have advantage on the throw.

Crawford goes to great lengths to say exactly what I am saying. I listened to them and nothing in there that suggested what you say. Their logic and reason is consistent with the rules and what I have said above on this thread. It is inconsistent with what you are saying. They even used the same example of being behind a bush and being able to make an attack while hidden!

From the link you posted he said exactly what I said:
Crawford - Shooting FROM COVER and running out into the open aren't the same thing..

Cover is defined on p196 of the PHB: A target has total cover if it is COMPLETELY CONCEALED by an obstacle. He is saying the same thing I am, come out from behind cover and you are not hidden! Shoot from cover and you are. Sticking your head and arm out means you are not "completely concealed" and not "shooting from cover".

Some specific points from the second audio you posted that support my position:

1. around 35:00 "Invisibility means you can't be seen, you can be screaming your lungs out but if you are invisible you are unseen."

2. 36:00 "going back to stealth in combat .... there are CIRCUMSTANCES where you can hide in combat, invisibility being one of them ... one of the basic actions in combat is hide and we expect people to hide in combat but you still have to follow the normal rules, when you try to hide you need to hide someplace WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T SEE YOU CLEARLY and then you need to keep quiet.... 37:19 hidden means you are UNSEEN and unheard ... 39:01 you get advantage if you fire FROM WHERE YOU ARE HIDING (this means fire from behind the wall in the example we are using, not move out from hiding and then fire) .... 39:40 It does not mean, let's say you ran and hid behind some boulder, you made a solid stealth check and you decide I want to run out and stab that guy in the back .... you do not get advantage ... you revealed your location when you went out into the open ... 40:25 THE BENEFIT OF BEING HIDDEN DOES NOT STICK WITH YOU UP TO A HIT OR MISS IF YOU BASICALLY INVALIDATED BEING HIDDEN BEFORE YOU EVEN MAKE THE ATTACK ROLL ... ranged attackers in particular can often gain the advantage of being hidden because they can make their attack FROM THE PLACE THEY ARE HIDING OUT, in the heavy foilage, up in the treetops .... 41:21 a melee character can benefit too if they can make the attack FROM THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE HIDING .. . 41:30 to really drill into the heart of the rule; if you are hidden and can make the attack FROM THE PLACE WHERE YOU ARE HIDDEN"

They are saying the same thing I am. If you can fire from your hidden location you get advantage, if you have to go out from behind cover to fire you don't.

Regarding skulker - maintain hidden is only one feature and not the one I was talking about. Darkvision has nothing to do with the second part. Darkvision turns dim light into bright light and darkness into dim light within a certain range but has nothing to do with this feat. Yes using the feat a character can hide in darkness against a creatue with darkvision, within the darkvision range with nothing else obscuiring him. What it really means is he can hide in dim light when he is not obscured (whether the enemy has darkvision or not) which is completely superfolous if you believe any character can be hidden without being obscured. But you are saying above that anyone can be hidden in suich a condition until they attack, meaning that second part is useless as a feat because everyone can do it.

 

[Mistwell]

I am not saying you claim that he is unseen after the attack, I am saying that you claim the Rogue is hidden while he is in plain view of his enemy. The attack is irrelevant to what I am talking about. It doesn't matter whether he sticks his head out and throws a dagger or if he sticks his head out for some other reason, once he sticks his head out he is no longer hidden and if that happens before he throws a dagger he does not have advantage on the throw.

Crawford goes to great lengths to say exactly what I am saying. I listened to them and nothing in there that suggested what you say.

Nope. Now you're fibbing. There is no way, no way at all, to come away from listening to that interview and think that. He repeats it, over and over again, to make sure it's clear. He gives multiple examples. He REPEATS THE EXAMPLE YOU JUST GAVE. He says as long as you don't leave the space you are in but you look out from the cover and shoot/throw, you remain hidden until that attack is resolved as a hit or miss. He says you can peak out around a corner, or from behind a rock, as long as you're leaning out from behind the cover and not moving.

We're done discussing this. I don't think you're arguing in good faith anymore. Because there is no way to listen to that whole thing and continue to insist what you're insisting he said. He unquestionably is saying, over and over again, that the language is specific to remaining hidden until your ranged attack hits or misses, and not before that, and the reason they wrote it that way was for this very thing that can peak out from cover, while not moving, and get advantage as a rogue.

If you don't want to play it that way, cool. But, don't misrepresent what he says in that interview.

Skulker - Dim light IS lightly concealed. It has a lot to do with the feat. As for your claim about what I am saying, you've just made it clear you're not even aware of my position. Which...is kinda amazing. But yeah, we're done.

 

[nexalis]

When the Rogue peaks his head around to throw that knife or shoot his bow he is no longer obscured, therefore is no longer hidden and loses advantage.

On the topic of being able to attack with a ranged weapon from hiding, I agree with @Mistwell 100%. It's plain as day to anyone who has listened to the Jeremy Crawford podcast on Stealth that the lead designer intended for rogues to be able to hide in combat in order to gain advantage on ranged attacks when they lean out to shoot. This is not really a matter for debate. You can run things differently in your game if you wish, but those are the RAI.

 

[FrozenNorth]

On the topic of being able to attack with a ranged weapon from hiding, I agree with @Mistwell 100%. It's plain as day to anyone who has listened to the Jeremy Crawford podcast on Stealth that the lead designer intended for rogues to be able to hide in combat in order to gain advantage on ranged attacks when they lean out to shoot. This is not really a matter for debate. You can run things differently in your game if you wish, but those are the RAI.

I didn’t listen to the podcast, but I have always run it the way @Mistwell describes as well. To me, it is clear from just the PHB.

Sure, if you are a melee rogue and you hide, then next turn run out and stab someone and you don’t get advantage, but if you are using a ranged weapon, you have advantage on that first shot (though afterwards, you are not hidden).

 

[billd91]

I didn’t listen to the podcast, but I have always run it the way @Mistwell describes as well. To me, it is clear from just the PHB.

Sure, if you are a melee rogue and you hide, then next turn run out and stab someone and you don’t get advantage, but if you are using a ranged weapon, you have advantage on that first shot (though afterwards, you are not hidden).

Same here. I'll even allow a certain amount of coming out into plain view if the target is sufficiently distracted (like, say, their nose is buried in a book and not expecting combat).

But ultimately if peeking out to get a shot automatically foils a sneak attack because "they're in plain sight", then there's virtually no rogue sneak attacking from a hidden position at all. They have to be peeking out in some way in order to see their target, otherwise they'd have disadvantage and that would foil the sneak attack.

My guideline on things like this is that if your interpretation of the rules makes something impossible, then your interpretation of the rules is probably at fault. The rules may have some clunky wording that may not be 100% clear, but it's incumbent on the players and DM to not interpret rules into uselessness.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I'm not talking about any sort of preparation period. Once you roll to attack, you have already come out, aimed(determined targets) and are now in the attack resolution portion where you roll damage if you it. You can't target something prior to getting to a point where you can see it.

There is, absent environmental or status effects, only one way to lose or gain line of effect on a target: Moving. If you can't see your target in your current spot, you have to Move out of it. The rules in that case are once again unambiguous. Move happened before Attack, so when you make your attack, you're not hidden.

I think much if this argument comes down to how we conceptualize the rules. Personally, I started with 4e, where everything is expressed clearly in terms of pure mechanics. You can make up your own in-fiction explanation for Daily Powers, healing surges, or Minor Actions, but it doesn't really matter. I instinctively read 5e the same way, particularly in combat, which reads a lot like 4e. So when I read, "when you make an attack," I read, more or less, "when you declare you are taking the Attack Action against a valid target," and if there's any question about status effects that affect the d20 rolls, any status in effect when you declare the action applies to the roll unless the rules explicitly state otherwise, as in they literally say, "before you roll the attack."

Seems like others conceptualize things in terms of the in-fiction world, then try to adjudicate how the mechanics apply. We all agree something like this can happen:

The rogue is hidden behind the shrubbery. He spies a Knight of Ni. He draws a bolt from his quiver, slips it into his hand crossbow, and pulls back the cord. There is a click as it notches into place. He peeks out, extends an arm, takes careful aim and pulls the trigger. The crossbow twangs. A bolt flies through the air.

We likewise all agree this causes the rogue to lose his hiding spot. But what causes him to lose his hiding spot? The click? The peek? The aim? The twang? The bolt? And when is the d20 rolled? At the beginning of the sequence? The middle? The end? The fiction-first approach makes this totally ambiguous, because how you narrate affects the mechanics, which is why there's so much argument from that camp.

I argue the fiction-first reading is fundamentally misunderstanding the way mechanics are supposed to apply, and the whole point of the "Unseen attackers" rule is to eliminate precisely this kind of ambiguity (and the writers back me up on this in the podcast). The in-fiction reason the knight notices mechanically irrelevant. You can narrate this however you like. The mechanical reason he notices is the Attack Action. An Attack Action always spoils Hide, and the effect is always applied after a hit or miss is resolved. No need to argue over sufficient degrees of peeking; they don't matter. This is in line with pretty much how every other 5e rule is written, and the general approach taken by Crawford when answering questions.