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

[Sir Brennen]

This discussion seems to be more about the fact that some people think sneak attack (and/or advantage) is overpowered rather than anything particularly about how hiding works (although obviously that's the scapegoat rule).

And I'd like to know why.

For those that want to hold on to hope that hiding is harder than it appears to be in order to keep some semblance of control over sneak attack... why do you feel that the halfling getting sneak attack nearly* every round (with advantage!) is so OP?

I hope the answer is more interesting than "Cuz Damage!"

I disagree that the discussion is about the mechanic being overpowered, though I think that, lacking any other mechanical/rules reason, that's what some people are falling back on, or others are assuming is the basis of their argument.

I personally think it's just a bit of cognitive dissonance for some people to entertain the idea of a halfling popping out (or even shooting around your fighter buddy with cover, which to me still means they have to lean around a bit) then going right back to hiding behind something the size of a human leg.

Even leaving the wording of Naturally Stealthy behind, the same argument could be applied to any rouge popping in and out from behind the same tree or boulder they were originally hidden behind. I'm in the "that bugs me" camp.

To explain why, let me add another term to our ongoing splitting hairs over-analysis of the rules text: location.

A couple of lines from the Basic rules:

"If you are hidden both unseen and unheard when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

"One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area,"

As quoted above, seeing a creature is the main factor, but not necessarily the only one, as the sneeze test shows. This to me lends weight to those arguing that knowledge of your current whereabouts trumps direct visual contact.

If you're hiding behind a low wall and sneeze, by the rules, you're location is given away, even though you haven't been seen. Could you simply make another "hide" check but remain in the exact same location? No, in my opinion, you can't. As others have argued, the creature now knows where you are, even though it can't see you. If you want to hide again, you'll need to use Stealth to move to a new location, one where he doesn't expect you to be.

This applies to your fighter buddy... that's the same location. It's pretty much trying to hide under direct observation. It's no different than Bob the Rogue running across an open field in plain sight of the enemy, stopping at the only tree in the field and trying to hide behind it. Not going to happen. There's only one location where Bob could be, so it's known. It's "revealed". (Unless Bob also makes a Climb check, in which case I fully expect him to shout "Death from above!" when he attacks.)

If Bob is running across the same field full of tall grass, and drops down out of sight while making a Stealth roll, that's totally fine. The enemy no longer knows exactly where he might be in the tall grass, as he can move while not visible. If he pops up and attacks, he's going to have to duck back down out of sight in the grass and move somewhere else if he wants to hide again.

So, the three rules of Stealth? Location, location, location.

 

[TDarien]

If you're hiding behind a low wall and sneeze, by the rules, you're location is given away, even though you haven't been seen. Could you simply make another "hide" check but remain in the exact same location? No, in my opinion, you can't. As others have argued, the creature now knows where you are, even though it can't see you. If you want to hide again, you'll need to use Stealth to move to a new location, one where he doesn't expect you to be.

Here is my issue with this interpretation. Hiding doesn't have memory. The things to required to hide are:
the creature(s) you're hiding from can't 1) see you or 2) hear you. That's it. If you meet those two requirements you can hide. Nothing in the rules says you can't hide from an enemy who knows where you are. Once you're hidden, enemies don't know *exactly* where you are, even if there's only one logical place you could be -- it can't be certain. If you're discovered, the situation is exactly the same. You can hide again, as long as you meet the requirements to hide. The fact that you were previously discovered is completely irrelevant.

For instance. Lets look at an invisible creature. If you are invisible, but not hidden, your position is known. But you can hide. If you're discovered, (because you attacked or somebody noticed you), are you saying an invisible creature can't hide again without moving? (even though the rules explicitly say an invisible creature my always attempt to hide)

Here is a great example to explain why you should be able to hide even if you're under direct observation. I duck behind a tree and hide. You know where I am, you say, "He's behind that tree! Get Him!" But when you get there, I'm nowhere to be seen! Where did I go? I teleported away while you couldn't see me! That's not something I could have done unless I was hidden from you. If I wasn't hidden, you'd know my position (even though you couldn't see me) and that I'd teleported.

As for the lightfoot halfling, the only difference is that it only needs to be concealed by a creature larger than it, not fully out of sight.

 

[Branduil]

I agree, there's no indication when RAW that Stealth has a "memory." When you attack someone, you reveal your position, but the only requirement for hiding again is that the enemy cannot see you, not that it doesn't know where you are. In the case of the Halfling, Naturally Stealthy provides an exception that allows him to hide even when he only has cover from a larger creature. And the fact that Halflings can hide as a bonus action points to the idea that this ability is meant to be used in combat.

 

[fjw70]

Again, hiding doesn't mean the enemy doesn't know where you are. All it means is they cannot see you or hear you. They could have a pretty good idea of what space you are in and target that space with disadvantage but you are still considered hidden.


They reason the halfling has advantage when attacking when hidden behind an ally is because the enemy can't see you aim and shoot at him. He doesn't see the attack coming until it leaves the halfling space and he has less time to react to the attack.


Imagine if Major League Baseball allowed the pitcher's mound to be concealed in darkness during the game. The batter knows the pitcher is there and knows a pitch will be coming towards him but will have a much harder time hitting the ball since he doesn't see the pitcher go through his pitching motion and doesn't see the ball until it is a few feet away from the mound.

 

[transtemporal]

Oh, absolutely- I was speaking more generally to the point that not all house rules are done to screw the players.

Oh yeah, totally agree!

 

[transtemporal]

In the case of the Halfling, Naturally Stealthy provides an exception that allows him to hide even when he only has cover from a larger creature. And the fact that Halflings can hide as a bonus action points to the idea that this ability is meant to be used in combat.

Exactly. I don't know how this can be any clearer. Its like people are intentionally misreading it so they can claim theres a problem.

 

[Mistwell]

Lets look at an invisible creature. If you are invisible, but not hidden, your position is known. But you can hide. If you're discovered, (because you attacked or somebody noticed you), are you saying an invisible creature can't hide again without moving? (even though the rules explicitly say an invisible creature my always attempt to hide)

That is a good argument. I see the parallels with this ability pretty keenly.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Exactly. I don't know how this can be any clearer. Its like people are intentionally misreading it so they can claim theres a problem.

You'll find that happens a lot with D&D. RPG's in general, really. Other games too. "We need WOTC/Paizo/Games Workshop/etc. to FAQ situation X" comes up a lot. Even when a rule is perfectly clear to you, someone out there will claim it's unclear, and sometimes they can make enough noise to spur some kind of clarification.

With this one specifically, the mechanics seem pretty clear, but a fair number of people don't like how it works and want a rules clarification. I suspect if the clarification was that, yes, those are in fact the mechanics, lightfoot halflings can do exactly that sneak shot/hide behind a party member thing every round, those who don't like it would house rule it til they did. That's fine, that's how the "system" typically works with RPGs.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The same argument could be applied to any rouge popping in and out from behind the same tree or boulder they were originally hidden behind. I'm in the "that bugs me" camp.

Me too, actually. That's why I don't always do it while playing a rogue, even though the rules say I can. (In fact, my DM gave me Inspiration the other day for NOT hiding behind the same doorframe a second time to snipe again, even though I could, because in the situation we were in, it seemed dumb.)

I don't think you have to the same tactic all the time just because the rules allow it, and it could be considered optimal.

I also don't think that there's anything wrong with a rule just because in some corner cases it allows for "unrealistic" things to occur. The opposite (having more limiting rules) usually causes it to be impossible for certain perfectly realistic things to ever occur. You win some you lose some.

At any rate, I think the rules are pretty clear that you CAN hide over and over in the same spot, but that doesn't mean you always have to.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that much like discovering the location of an invisible enemy makes it so you can target said enemy (even if you have disadvantage), knowing where a hiding enemy is does not mean they can't hide, but it DOES mean it's not that hard to go find them. And you can attack them, even if you haven't found them (albeit with disadvantage and they probably have cover - but you could blast 'em with area effects or magic missile if you're a wizard!) Knowing where they are has some advantages, at least.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Here is my issue with this interpretation. Hiding doesn't have memory. The things to required to hide are:
the creature(s) you're hiding from can't 1) see you or 2) hear you. That's it. If you meet those two requirements you can hide. Nothing in the rules says you can't hide from an enemy who knows where you are. Once you're hidden, enemies don't know *exactly* where you are, even if there's only one logical place you could be -- it can't be certain. If you're discovered, the situation is exactly the same. You can hide again, as long as you meet the requirements to hide. The fact that you were previously discovered is completely irrelevant.

The Hide action doesn't have "memory", as you put it, but the creature does. To suggest otherwise to me would be like a character saying "I cast Suggestion on the orcs" and the DM responding "well, the rules don't explicitly say that orcs can hear, so the spell fails." So the fact that you were discovered is completely relevant, if you don't vacate the spot where you were discovered. I can think of no logical reason why a creature would need to make a Perception check to find you in the place it already thinks you are, unless you're not actually there.

For instance. Lets look at an invisible creature. If you are invisible, but not hidden, your position is known. But you can hide. If you're discovered, (because you attacked or somebody noticed you), are you saying an invisible creature can't hide again without moving? (even though the rules explicitly say an invisible creature my always attempt to hide)

Invisibility is a weird case for this discussion. Mechanically, the only reason to Hide while invisible is to get away, which implies movement. You already attack with advantage, so hiding doesn't add anything combat-wise. That said... yes, absolutely, in my game you'd have to move to take the Hide action if you position as been revealed, for it to have any narratively meaningful result. Otherwise, what happens? The creature has to make a Perception check to attack the spot where it already noticed you and thinks you are still? I'm not saying you'd have to move across the room... just not be in the same place you were, even if it's just a side-step. In fact, that's the most logical action, to get the attacker focused on the wrong space, which is again, why invisibility is a weird case (Even in the rules it mentions "signs of it's passage" when talking about hiding and invisibility.)

Here is a great example to explain why you should be able to hide even if you're under direct observation. I duck behind a tree and hide. You know where I am, you say, "He's behind that tree! Get Him!" But when you get there, I'm nowhere to be seen! Where did I go? I teleported away while you couldn't see me! That's not something I could have done unless I was hidden from you. If I wasn't hidden, you'd know my position (even though you couldn't see me) and that I'd teleported.

I wouldn't call that a "great" example, unless you meant to prove my point If the character teleported, he moved! If he didn't move, then he's exactly where the enemy expects him! So why should he get Advantage for that? If for some bizarre reason the attacker thinks "There's a small chance he might have been a high enough level wizard that he teleported away", then the attacker would ... what? Drop his guard as he comes to attack you? Look somewhere else as he rounds the tree? Your example is also completely true if the character doesn't take the Hide action, but merely stands behind a tree out of sight. Does he get Advantage then when the attackers move to the tree where they know he is because of the exact same uncertainty? If all it takes is a tiny amount of uncertainty to allow a character Advantage, wouldn't the fighter have Advantage on all his attacks, because the enemy never knows where the next sword swing is going to come from?

To me "Hide" implies to conceal your actual location from the enemy, which you simply can't do if they know where you are and you stay there. You have to be somewhere else, which takes movement if you've already been discovered. You get advantage when you're attacking from where they don't expect you, like if you climbed up or slunk into the tall grass when you were out of sight behind the tree.

I've been re-reading the various sections quoted multiple times as I've gone through this thread, and I can see that the strict rules interpreters are going to stand by the "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you" phrase in the "Hiding" sidebar. To me, that's an incredibly obvious statement, but not necessarily exclusive. There's obviously situations for me (and a ... sadly... seemingly minority of other posters) that also logically preclude a Hiding attempt. Guess that's why I'm glad for the leaning toward "Rulings not rules" in this edition.