D&D 5E Halfling rogue sniping from the the second rank

[TDarien]

Basically, to hide you need your enemy unaware of you, or you need full cover or invisibility. Which makes sense; ducking back down to where you were hiding really shouldn't be cause for your foes to lose track of you. Peak-a-boo might fool an infant, but not fully grown beasties.

First of all, please quote the rules text where it says an enemy must be unaware you you to hide from it. The rules only say you can only hide from an enemy that can't see you. Naturally Stealthy trumps that and allows the halfling hide from an enemy that can see it behind another creature.

The problem with your interpretation is that there is no difference between the first round and subsequent rounds. The enemy is aware of and can see the halfling when it hides behind the fighter in the first round. When it hides again in the second round, it's exactly the same situation; the halfling is hiding from a creature that is aware of and can see him.

It's the same for other creatures and total cover. Even if there's only one spot you can be in, if you have total cover, you can hide behind it as many times as you want. Yes the enemy knows you're there, and it only has to move to a position where it can see you for you to lose the benefit, but you're still hidden. There is nothing in the rules that says you can't hide from an enemy that is aware of you.

 

[Agamon]

First of all, please quote the rules text where it says an enemy must be unaware you you to hide from it. The rules only say you can only hide from an enemy that can't see you. Naturally Stealthy trumps that and allows the halfling hide from an enemy that can see it behind another creature.

See below.

The problem with your interpretation is that there is no difference between the first round and subsequent rounds. The enemy is aware of and can see the halfling when it hides behind the fighter in the first round. When it hides again in the second round, it's exactly the same situation; the halfling is hiding from a creature that is aware of and can see him.

No, if the player says he's keeping behind the big half-orc when they go in, I'd have him make a hide check at the start of the battle. If he makes it, the monsters don't know he's there. Once he attacks, they know he's there.

It's the same for other creatures and total cover. Even if there's only one spot you can be in, if you have total cover, you can hide behind it as many times as you want. Yes the enemy knows you're there, and it only has to move to a position where it can see you for you to lose the benefit, but you're still hidden. There is nothing in the rules that says you can't hide from an enemy that is aware of you.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can’t be seen, so it can always try to hide.

Hiding isn't a state of being unseen, being unseen is just a condition of being able to hide. If someone watches you duck behind a rock, would you say your hidden from them? If so, I'd like to play Hide and Seek with you for money.

 

[FadedC]

The rules only say you can only hide from an enemy that can't see you. Naturally Stealthy trumps that and allows the halfling hide from an enemy that can see it behind another creature.

I think the key question is DOES naturally stealthy trump that rule. It's a reasonable interpretation to say that all the ability does is to allow you to hide behind your allies, but that all other stealth rules (i.e. you need to be unseen) still hold true.

Honestly I think both interpretations are reasonable and that without a clarification it's hard to know exactly what was intended. I'm leaning towards the Halfling only being able to stealth while unseen as well, but I'm not confident about that. Just like every edition before it, the stealth rules in 5e are not entirely clear.

 

[Evenglare]

Naturally Stealthy : You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

Hiding (Pg 60):When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.. You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position (ie you are discovered). Emphasis is mine

To me this reads as, when your position is discovered it's a done deal. You took your one hiding, gave up your position and now you gotta go find a new one rather than the one you just used. Now the comeback is going to be "well you are obscured and the obscured rules read... A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see the appendix)."

So in a sense I would treat the larger character like a patch of fog or something equally relevant. So in this case let's relate this to the fog idea, the idea that your character is in light fog. Yes you are obscured so you get your advantage shot and that's great. BUT after you take the shot you have revealed your place within the fog. The fact that you are obscured doesn't matter anymore because in my opinion when you reveal your position that's it, now that being said you could just move to another obscured square and hide right? I mean if we are in a big room of fog you see an arrow shoot out at you then you just move somewhere else in the fog and hide again. GREAT. So apply that reasoning but instead of the room filled with fog, it's just that one area behind the character which acts as the fog did. So when you shoot you get your advantage but again you have given your position away. Now you have to go to another obscured area and try to hide there, you can't use the same area. It make absolutely no sense to even entertain the idea.

Now that being said, if you had a line of fighters and you were the rogue darting back and forth behind this line, then sure I'd allow you to make hide checks and do you advantage, the key here is you have to keep moving into obscured areas that is different from your area you fired from during your turn. Also to move to another obscured area you would have to move THROUGH an obscured area because if you pop out from behind the fighter, then run over to a bunch of barrels you have given your position away at the barrels so I'd rule no advantage there either.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Let's look at some scenarios. I'm not as concerned about "in one round". I am concerned about within a round or two of combat.

A: A monster(M) and a fighter(F) are in mêlée. The halfling(H) hides behind the fighter.

M
F
H
Can the halfling hide, then attack, and hide again?

B: A monster(M) and a fighter(F) are in mêlée. The halfling(H) hides behind the a 5' long, 10' tall barrier(B).

M
F
B
H
Can the halfling hide, then attack, and hide again?

C: A monster(M) and a fighter(F) are in mêlée. The halfling(H) hides behind a 10' long, 10' tall barrier(B).

M
F
BB
H

Can the halfling hide, then attack, move 5', and hide again?

D: A monster(M) and a fighter(F) are in mêlée. The halfling(H) hides behind a 25' long, 10' tall barrier(B).

M
F
BBBBB
H—->H

Can the halfling hide, then attack, move 25', and hide again?

E: A monster(M) and a fighter(F) are in mêlée. The halfling(H) hides behind a 50' long, 10' tall barrier(B).

M
F
BBBBBBBBBB
H————->H

Can the halfling hide, then attack, move 50', and hide again?

Is there a point at which the halfling "can't be seen" by the monster?

Thaumaturge?

 

[Agamon]

Is there a point at which the halfling "can't be seen" by the monster?

There's certainly some DM fiat involved, but I would say if you're in a significantly different spot on the battlefield than before, and have stayed unseen getting there, hiding wouldn't be a problem.

That's the difference between 5e and earlier editions. It's not condition a), then b), then c), then d), then e), then f), okay, now your hidden. It's here's some simple rules, now use some common sense to extrapolate.

 

[mach1.9pants]

To me once you made an attack you are discovered but then you can use an action to hide again behind your ally. Therefore you get advantage if they don't spot you, so you have spent an action to get advantage - seems to be the general rule of thumb.

Though maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick with Hiding as nowhere in the rules does it mention using an action to hide. But that is the way I'd play it. This could be seen as a nerf of Naturally Stealthy but no one else gets the chance to even attempt it, unless your ally is a horse!

 

[Nikosandros]

TThough maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick with Hiding as nowhere in the rules does it mention using an action to hide.

Hide is an action, as stated on page 72 of Basic. OTOH, a rogue with cunning action can hide as a bonus action.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Oh yeah thanks, so yes the Rogue can do it every round that he can have the ally in between him and the enemy IMO. Spend an action to get advantage. Won't be long before those enemies are moving around to track him down though!

 

[Agamon]

Oh yeah thanks, so yes the Rogue can do it every round that he can have the ally in between him and the enemy IMO. Spend an action to get advantage. Won't be long before those enemies are moving around to track him down though!

But if you go this route, when is he tracked down? It would have to be never, or at least not as long as he has an ally near him. Every round he attacks and the enemies can see him only until he mysteriously disappears again until he attacks next round.