D&D 5E Stealth & that big Rock!

[Noctem]

But my point is that people seem to be overly focusing on coming out of cover/concealment removing hidden (duh) versus when you can maintain some cover and still be able to attack while hidden.

That's because, from what I've noticed, most people don't like how hiding works and often find it overpowered to be able to hide and attack multiple times per combat. Considering the amount of hoops required to even hide in the first place, I've never found it useful to impose further hoops and/or penalties.

 

[Noctem]

So how does a Rogue ever get to sneak attack? Taking that strict interpretation would suggest that a Rogue could never be hidden and sneak attack unless able to attack through full cover or while fully obscured. Obviously the feature is meant to be reasonably useful, so something more much be possible.

In our games, the Rogue becomes hidden typically by taking full cover (usually full concealment isn't available, but running around a wall is), stealthing, then creeping back to the edge where they have something less than full cover (i.e., partial cover, else if still full cover, they would not be able to see or target their foe), and attacking while hidden from that position. Are you saying that does not work? If that does not work, please be explicit when stealthing for hidden to be able to sneak attack does work.

Sneak attack can be done if you have a conscious ally adjacent to your target. That's probably the most common means. Obscurement does not prevent a rogue from sneak attacking? Not sure what you mean there.

 

[Kalshane]

I do, but if the character is doing it in the same place/way, I give advantage to perception after the first time. Keep ducking in and out behind that tree? Works great the first time, gets harder after that. Run to a different tree? Works great, gets harder after that. If the hider at least tries to vary his approach (even popping out from different sides of a larger obstacle like a 10' wall or large fallen tree trunk), I let it work. If the rogue keeps doing the same thing, it gets harder.

Also, if it's only the rogue against the bad guys, and they know it, they automatically get advantage to perception because they are keenly looking out for that one guy hiding around here somewhere. If there are others providing distractions, they don't. Rogues like chaotic situations.

This pretty much the way I handle it in my games. Combat is chaotic and people tend to have tunnel vision, focusing on the threat immediately in front of them.

Yes, in a situation with a lone rogue and alert enemies, they're not going to get away with popping out of hiding and catching their foes off-guard, unless they're in situation where they can move while still hidden and attack from a different direction than they originally took cover from.

But in a standard combat where the wizard is flinging arcs of flame about while the cleric is calling down divine punishment the raging barbarian is in the orc's face swinging his great axe, the rogue can definitely slip behind cover and the orc loses track of him. (Provided his Stealth beats the orc's Perception) and catch him off-guard when springing out of hiding.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So how does a Rogue ever get to sneak attack? Taking that strict interpretation would suggest that a Rogue could never be hidden and sneak attack unless able to attack through full cover or while fully obscured. Obviously the feature is meant to be reasonably useful, so something more much be possible.

Most rogues get sneak attack by having an ally within five feet of their target, the same way they've been doing it since 3E. If your barbarian friend is fighting the orc, then you automatically qualify for sneak attack; you just don't get advantage on your attack every round. You're supposed to get that pretty much every round.

You can also get sneak attack - with advantage from hiding - if you attack someone outside of combat. If you're sneaking around the enemy base, and jump out at a guard who isn't alert, then you get advantage from being hidden and that advantage lets you use sneak attack. It's not something that's supposed to happen very often, but it's an option if circumstances warrant it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But my point is that people seem to be overly focusing on coming out of cover/concealment removing hidden (duh) versus when you can maintain some cover and still be able to attack while hidden.

You cannot remain hidden in combat unless you have total obscurement, and you cannot attack a target that has total obscurement. If you want to gain advantage in combat from being hidden, then you need some sort of weird one-way obscurement that lets you see your target without it being able to see you - some racial feature, or some sort of magic.

 

[Noctem]

You can also get sneak attack - with advantage from hiding - if you attack someone outside of combat. If you're sneaking around the enemy base, and jump out at a guard who isn't alert, then you get advantage from being hidden and that advantage lets you use sneak attack. It's not something that's supposed to happen very often, but it's an option if circumstances warrant it.

You seem to be implying that it's not possible to hide and attack while hidden in combat. That might be how it works in your game but that's not a restriction that exists within the rules. Being alert or not has nothing to do with being able to hide or not or being able to attack while hidden. Being alert, which is actually read as being aware of your surroundings in 5e, is only relevant when a hidden creature leaves its hiding place and approaches you. Which is also subject to DM fiat who can rule distraction is also a factor or not.

I would also point out that according to most people I've spoken with, not me personally, it's not possible to attack people outside of combat. I personally would resolve the attack which triggered combat for example before having everyone roll initiative, but that's a personal houserule to be clear. Devs have specified that attacking is meant to only happen within combat.

 

[Noctem]

You cannot remain hidden in combat unless you have total obscurement, and you cannot attack a target that has total obscurement. If you want to gain advantage in combat from being hidden, then you need some sort of weird one-way obscurement that lets you see your target without it being able to see you - some racial feature, or some sort of magic.

Incorrect... You remain hidden until you are seen clearly by an observer. What constitutes being "unclearly seen" seems to be mainly left up to the DM to decide. If you're seen clearly, you lose hidden. Total obscurement (which isn't actually something in 5e, it's either total cover or complete darkness) is not a requirement to become and remain hidden in 5e post errata. Just because you can't see something does not mean you can't attack it as well, you simply have disadvantage. Being hidden however does mean that a creature does not know where you are and must guess your location on top of attacking with disadvantage.

That same errata also changed how obscurement works. If you are in complete darkness, no one can see you but you can see everything not also in complete darkness. You do not have any penalty for looking from complete darkness to a zone which is not in complete darkness. The conundrum pre errata about darkness not allowing you to see a campfire some distance away because the rules state you were considered blinded is no longer within the rules. It was fixed with errata. If you look into darkness, you are blinded. If you look out from darkness, you are fine.

I'm guessing you might be confusing editions or something?

 

[slaughterj]

Ignoring Invisibility, Elf/Halfling abilities, Blindsight, Darkvision, being in or out of combat, etc., and assuming making ranged attacks on a foe without an adjacent ally, here is how I understand hiding works:
1. You cannot hide from a creature that can see you (PHB 177).
2. A creature cannot see you if you are in a heavily obscured area (i.e., full concealment), which blocks vision entirely (PHB 184), or if you have total cover, which complete conceals the creature (PHB 196).
3. Therefore, you can hide with a successful stealth roll beating your foe's perception (PHB 177) if you are in a heavily obscured area or have total cover.

I think there is no controversy with #1-3 above, but if so, please let me know what specifically is the issue.

4. You cannot attack a foe from behind total cover, so even though hidden, your cannot sneak attack.
5. If you are in a heavily obscured area and make an attack on a foe you cannot see, your attack roll would be at disadvantage (PHB 194), however when you are in a heavily obscured area then your foe cannot see you and you have advantage on attacks against it (PHB 195), but advantage and disadvantage cancel out each other (PHB 173), so you would not have advantage on your ranged attack and cannot sneak attack.
6. If either total cover or heavy obscurement (concealment) is required to be hidden, given the above, then you basically cannot be hidden and make a ranged sneak attack (setting aside the odd case of being in heavy obscurement attacking blindly at a foe who happens to adjacent to an ally).
7. The rules intend for you to be able to be hidden and make a ranged sneak attack, therefore you must be able to remain hidden under circumstances that are something less than total cover or heavy obscurement.
8. Given #6-7 above, you can become hidden under total cover or heavy obscurement and remain hidden so long as you maintain partial cover or light obscurement from your foe and attack from that position, getting sneak attack.

Please let me know which of the foregoing points you agree or disagree with and why with specificity.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You seem to be implying that it's not possible to hide and attack while hidden in combat. That might be how it works in your game but that's not a restriction that exists within the rules. Being alert or not has nothing to do with being able to hide or not or being able to attack while hidden. Being alert, which is actually read as being aware of your surroundings in 5e, is only relevant when a hidden creature leaves its hiding place and approaches you. Which is also subject to DM fiat who can rule distraction is also a factor or not.

I'm not implying anything. I'm explicitly stating that you cannot attack while remaining hidden in combat, barring a very small number of exceptions. This is explicitly a restriction which is declared within the rules, as I have quoted a few pages back and I'll repeat here:

"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."

There is some wiggle room for DM interpretation when it comes to distractions, but the fact that you are trying to hide does not qualify as some distraction going off somewhere else, unless your DM is being ridiculously generous well-beyond the intent of the rules. It certainly doesn't mean that the generic goings-on of combat are enough of a distraction to make a creature stop paying attention when it is explicitly alert for signs of danger all around.

 

[slaughterj]

You cannot remain hidden in combat unless you have total obscurement, and you cannot attack a target that has total obscurement.

Actually you can attack a target that has total obscurement just fine. You can't see the target and get disadvantage, and they can't see you attacking, so you get advantage, so it is a wash. See that Unseen Attackers and Targeting rules. Now if the target in total obscurement is hidden by a successful stealth check, then you cannot target them (though you could target a square and hope to get lucky).

If you want to gain advantage in combat from being hidden, then you need some sort of weird one-way obscurement that lets you see your target without it being able to see you - some racial feature, or some sort of magic.

I think you are mistaken on this, see my analysis.