D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[kalil]

Ummmm no just no. The only things a rogue doesn't compete well with are GWM and SS builds. That said rogues do need their sneak attack most every turn. But advantage... no just no.

I can agree until level 5. When iterative attacks enter the game I stand firm by my statement above. However, this is tangential and we will not reach an agreement so I propose we just stop the discussion

 

[FrogReaver]

I can agree until level 5. When iterative attacks enter the game I stand firm by my statement above. However, this is tangential and we will not reach an agreement so I propose we just stop the discussion

Or I dunno. You could actually show some math to back up your assertion? Or at least do some kind of basic comparison.

A rogue optimized for damage will take crossbow expertise and use a hand crossbow. Making an attack and bonus action attack is nearly equivalent to advantage. A melee rogue will two weapon fight. So far I'm not seeing the advantage option giving a huge advantage compared to these styles.

Now if you mean the shortbow/longbow rogue option. A level 5 fighter will do 2d8+8 or so over 2 attacks. A level 5 rogue will do 3d6 + 1d8 + 4 over a single attack. That's pretty similar in my book. Fighters have a few more damage boosting abilities. Rogues have more utility.

The only difference comes when trying to compare a rogue to GWM or SS class. Pretty much everything gets left in the dust compared to those...

 

[merwins]

This thread is about hiding and rules adjustments related to it.
I'd recommend moving damage to another thread.

The primary purpose of hiding is to avoid being a target. The secondary purpose is to gain tactical superiority.

A character that has zero risk of being hit is not truly engaged in the combat. IMO.

For a frame of reference, damage avoidance spells are a limited resource. I don't know if any spell that makes you immune to being targeted.

For my game, I won't allow a rogue to take a shot, and then avoid being targeted every round. Every other round, okay. There's still a chance the rogue won't actually be targeted during the rounds it might be possible. That's ok too.

But as a GM, the cheese of having to resort to area effect spells to deal with a rogue seems absurd.

 

[kalil]

This thread is about hiding and rules adjustments related to it.
I'd recommend moving damage to another thread.

The primary purpose of hiding is to avoid being a target. The secondary purpose is to gain tactical superiority.

A character that has zero risk of being hit is not truly engaged in the combat. IMO.

For a frame of reference, damage avoidance spells are a limited resource. I don't know if any spell that makes you immune to being targeted.

For my game, I won't allow a rogue to take a shot, and then avoid being targeted every round. Every other round, okay. There's still a chance the rogue won't actually be targeted during the rounds it might be possible. That's ok too.

But as a GM, the cheese of having to resort to area effect spells to deal with a rogue seems absurd.

If we for a second assume a lenient reading of the rules whereby which a rogue would be allowed to attack and move behind a corner and hide.

In this case the rogue would be hidden but his enemies still saw where he went (behind that corner over there). They can then just move around the corner, gain line of sight to the rogue instantly breaking his hiding and swat him.

The generous reading of the rules does in my experience cause very little problems as long as you remember that hidden is not Invisibility and that hiding does not erase your enemies memory of where you went.

 

[schnee]

In this case the rogue would be hidden but his enemies still saw where he went (behind that corner over there). They can then just move around the corner, gain line of sight to the rogue instantly breaking his hiding and swat him.

...and as they move, promptly get smacked by the Fighter's AoO. Win/win!

I tend more towards 'rule of cool' too, so I'm very lenient with Sneak Attack, but to get Advantage on consecutive rounds, there needs to be enough cover where the Rogue can come from another angle from the one they took to hide, and the intended target is somehow being threatened/distracted by someone else.

It's not like the Rogue needs to be completely hidden, they just need a momentary distraction and enough other activity going on that their noise/movement gets lost in the shuffle.

 

[FrogReaver]

My problem is that those who are trying to hide every round in combat aren't really trying to hide. They are just fishing for advantage and could care less about actually trying to hide from the enemies. That's given by the fact they will pop out from the same location or nearly the same location and then try to hide there again.

Narrate ducking behind the big rock and popping out and shooting from slightly different places. That's cool. But don't expect advantage for doing that just because you say I hide right before or after you pop out each time. Just my opinion.

 

[kalil]

...and as they move, promptly get smacked by the Fighter's AoO. Win/win!

I tend more towards 'rule of cool' too, so I'm very lenient with Sneak Attack, but to get Advantage on consecutive rounds, there needs to be enough cover where the Rogue can come from another angle from the one they took to hide, and the intended target is somehow being threatened/distracted by someone else.

It's not like the Rogue needs to be completely hidden, they just need a momentary distraction and enough other activity going on that their noise/movement gets lost in the shuffle.

The AoO thingy is entirely unrelated to the hiding tho. That is just a consequence of being a ranged attacker with a fighter buddy.

It is fine to limit the advantage if thats how your group likes it. All I am saying is that the claim that hiding rogues cannot be attacked is incorrect. And I do not think that the advantage from hiding grants any unfair levels of combat prowess, on the contrary in a group of strong combat classes (barbarians, paladin etc) it is really an edge I feel the rogue needs to keep up beyond level 5. YMMV.

 

[Jester David]

Don't you have to be hidden first though? This doesn't work if there's no appropriate hiding place from which to sneak up behind the guard. Shadowing won't work if your quarry is already aware of you. I don't think distraction by itself is an appropriate circumstance for hiding.

So long as there's more than one thing to hide behind, distraction can work just fine. If the rogue uses their action to cry "Now, Redgar!!" and dive behind cover when the enemy spins around, then they might be hidden. The enemy has no idea where they went. They know they're present, but they don't know where they are.
In the same way if invisible, you can take an action to hide in plain sight.

As for the guards, it depends on the situation. I can imagine guards watching a gate (to a castle or a wall) could be snuck up on if you went far enough to the side and slipped up towards them in their periphery, despite being in plain sight for everyone else.


In other situations, the DM does have some onus of describing the encounter area - especially in theatre of the mid play - and confirming if terrain mentioned is large enough to act as cover or obscuring terrain, as well as which way any opponents might be facing or focusing their attention.
The player can't just assume there's something to hide behind and declare "I hide". They need to inquire and discover if the pillar holding up the ceiling is a big ten-foot-wide column that they can duck behind or a thin one-foot beam that won't significantly obscure a terrier.

 

[Harzel]

From a "contribution in combat" point of view the rogue kinda needs to be able to hide most turns. A more restrictive interpretation of the stealth rules leaves the rogue significantly behind the curve in combat and thus imho makes the game less fun for everyone. I would err in the direction of letting everyone be awesome.

So just to clarify, in your game the rogue still has to make a stealth check and the enemies get an opposing perception check, true? You are just allowing an attempt​ to hide, yes?

 

[kalil]

So just to clarify, in your game the rogue still has to make a stealth check and the enemies get an opposing perception check, true? You are just allowing an attempt​ to hide, yes?

Yes, why wouldn't they? I am very confused by the question.