D&D 5E DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

[nswanson27]

Eh, I just think there are stronger arguments for an interpretation of the basic rules than to reference a feat.

Well at the end of the day it's always up to the reader to decide anyways. Personally I think this is the most objective case I've seen on this thread. I think there are several problems going on in this thread.
1: The OP doesn't like how he can't target the rogue (and therefore, something must be wrong). I think that's a DM perception problem (no offense).
2: The realism (or lack thereof) with hidden vs. merely being unseen (advantage on attacks). If that's the heart of the objection - yes, there is a bit of a break of realism IMO, but it IS nonetheless RAW/RAI.
If it's really that big of a problem for people, then ask yourself "How does a rogue uncannily dodge an AOI fireball exactly?". He just does. There's a break in realism, but again it's RAW/RAI. Shoot, what about the "realism" of turn-based combat in general?
Perfectly fine if you houserule because you don't want these breaks in realism. But don't say that it's not RAW/RAI because "realism".
If that's really what you want to do, then you've got a long ways to go for applying that metric on the rest of the rules, and you'll end with something very different than what's in the PHB.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't see anything that supports your point. They either say it's situational or no advantage. If the rules are clear you should be able to cite the rules that allow it.

I have done, (and have also provided justification as to why the rules should be interpreted that way) and now you're just being a tad obtuse.

When a creature attacks from hiding it is not revealed until the attack roll is resolved. It gets advantage on its attack to represent a sudden attack from nowhere. If it doesn't attack and just stands there like a grinning idiot for several seconds, it also reveals itself.

In some situations it may also be able to duck back into its cover and again attempt to hide. This last bit is very DM dependent, based on the situation, environment and other factors. The answer could be yes, no or yes with disadvantage.

 

[iserith]

Well at the end of the day it's always up to the reader to decide anyways. Personally I think this is the most objective case I've seen on this thread. I think there are several problems going on in this thread.
1: The OP doesn't like how he can't target the rogue (and therefore, something must be wrong). I think that's a DM perception problem (no offense).

Ha, yeah, my expectation is that I can't target the rogue most of the time for one reason or another. It's almost never due to bonus Hide action. I'm fine with it.

2: The realism (or lack thereof) with hidden vs. merely being unseen (advantage on attacks). If that's the heart of the objection - yes, there is a bit of a break of realism IMO, but it IS nonetheless RAW/RAI.
If it's really that big of a problem for people, then ask yourself "How does a rogue uncannily dodge an AOI fireball exactly?". He just does. There's a break in realism, but again it's RAW/RAI.
Perfectly fine if you houserule because you don't want these breaks in realism. But don't say that it's not RAW/RAI because "realism".
If that's really what you want to do, then you've got a long ways to go for applying that metric on the rest of the rules, and you'll end with something very different than what's in the PHB.

I'm not one to care about realism to any great degree. When the rules say you're not hidden if you can be seen though, my ruling is that you lose hidden when you pop out and thus have no advantage. I don't take the Skulker feat into account to make this determination.

 

[fjw70]

I have done, (and have also provided justification as to why the rules should be interpreted that way) and now you're just being a tad obtuse.

When a creature attacks from hiding it is not revealed until the attack roll is resolved. It gets advantage on its attack to represent a sudden attack from nowhere. If it doesn't attack and just stands there like a grinning idiot for several seconds, it also reveals itself.

In some situations it may also be able to duck back into its cover and again attempt to hide. This last bit is very DM dependent, based on the situation, environment and other factors. The answer could be yes, no or yes with disadvantage.

the key piece you haven't shown is the rule that states that you can reveal yourself (I.e. Pop out) and make the attack with disadvantage. I guess we are done since this is not in the rules.

 

[nswanson27]

I'm not one to care about realism to any great degree. When the rules say you're not hidden if you can be seen though, my ruling is that you lose hidden when you pop out and thus have no advantage. I don't take the Skulker feat into account to make this determination.

Yeah wasn't directing the realism bit at you - more of a general statement on this thread. Anyways, your ruling is your ruling - no problem with that.
Mine is:
1: If a rogue pops out a bit to shoot without having a successful stealth check, they are seen and thus lose advantage.
2: If a rogue pops out a bit to shoot with having a successful stealth check, they are NOT seen and thus have advantage. Just because they theoretically could be seen at that point (like with a higher passive perception) doesn't mean they necessarily are seen. The existence of Skulker feats rule logically implies this is RAI. (This where we differ.) After the shot, stealth is broken even if they duck back down and are only unseen at that point. If they successfully stealth again, then they are hidden again.
3: Popping out of cover to shoot has different mechanical implications and is different than stepping out of cover entirely to move or something. Namely, for point 2.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

That's one way to play. You know- the DM is the completely impartial referee, and simply calls balls and strikes.

Of course, 5e is much more similar to OD&D and 1e/2e in the sense that, between "rulings, not rules," "optional rules," and the majority of the DMG discussing customization and alternate ways to run the game ... then that's not quite right either.

This isn't a license for bad DMing or arbitrary and capricious rulings, but it also means that every situation doesn't call for the same "RAW(r), nerfing players can never be allowed," solution.

Or, put another way, what works for one table doesn't work for another. "Deal with it," is rarely a good solution to a problem. "Discuss it with the table," is usually a better idea.

Agreed. However the DM and the players need to agree on the rules being used. This includes how stealth is implemented. A table discussion is a great way to handle that, especially if a player wants to play a rogue.

 

[Mort]

the key piece you haven't shown is the rule that states that you can reveal yourself (I.e. Pop out) and make the attack with disadvantage. I guess we are done since this is not in the rules.

The rules state (PH 195): When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attacks against it. If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.


Is the confusion perhaps the use of "pop out"?

I don't think anyone is saying you can reveal yourself, have the target see you and then attack with advantage. You attack with advantage because you are hidden and the act of attacking reveals you. "popping out" is just a colloquial way of saying you have revealed yourself when attacking - at least that's How I'm reading what is being said.

Is that clearer?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cooperjer]

Yeah wasn't directing the realism bit at you - more of a general statement on this thread. Anyways, your ruling is your ruling - no problem with that.
Mine is:
1: If a rogue pops out a bit to shoot without having a successful stealth check, they are seen and thus lose advantage.
2: If a rogue pops out a bit to shoot with having a successful stealth check, they are NOT seen and thus have advantage. Just because they theoretically could be seen at that point (like with a higher passive perception) doesn't mean they necessarily are seen. The existence of Skulker feats rule logically implies this is RAI. (This where we differ.) After the shot, stealth is broken even if they duck back down and are only unseen at that point. If they successfully stealth again, then they are hidden again.
3: Popping out of cover to shoot has different mechanical implications and is different than stepping out of cover entirely to move or something. Namely, for point 2.

I believe I run the stealth system the same as you; however your statement #2 is a bit confusing. If the rogue has a stealth check of 10 and the NPC has a passive perception of 11, then is the NPC aware of the rogue's location? In my game, the rogue needs to exceed the perception (visual and audio) of the NPCs to be considered hidden. I allow the rogue to hide around the corner if the NPC is distracted with another PC in combat or similar interaction that requires a decent amount of attention. It's assumed the rogue gives the impression that it is leaving the area and thus the NPC will no longer consider the rogue to be a threat as long as the rogue's hide check exceeds the passive perception of the NPC. This trick is allowed to work once per combat.

 

[nswanson27]

This is an issue, because (all together now), D&D is supposed to be fun.

Rule -1. Otherwise, you'll end up an empty table, and there's no point in talking about the game anyways.