D&D 5E Ranged attacks from behind a corner/an object

[Cap'n Kobold]

But is it possible to hide behind 3/4 cover?

Yes, but where total cover means you are automatically unseen, 3/4 cover would mean that you're able to be seen, and thus require a check.
Depending on whether you're ducking out of sight behind the cover to try to remain concealed, or just standing behind it fighting.

I'd place someone leaning out from behind a wall in order to shoot or throw a weapon as 3/4 cover for example.

 

[Hriston]

I think if you're attempting to assess the current state of the battlefield, aim and shoot all in one go then you can attack but it will be at disadvantage. It's a wild shot.

That isn't how I imagine it. The way I imagine it is that you're keeping track of the battlefield the entire time leading up to your attack. For example, you're aware of the locations of all participants that aren't hidden from you, even those you can't see due to visual obstruction. Because you're positioned to attack from hiding, though, you can see whatever portion of the battlefield that can be seen from your vantage point.

 

[Hriston]

OK but that is still saying you break cover during the attack, not that you are actually attacking through cover.

You are neither breaking cover nor attacking through the object that grants cover. The line of sight/attack has no thickness. I would say you're attacking from hiding.

Whether breaking cover like that should expose your position is a different question.

Your position is revealed when the attack hits or misses, which allows you to remain hidden as you make the attack itself.

 

[Oofta]

You are neither breaking cover nor attacking through the object that grants cover. The line of sight/attack has no thickness. I would say you're attacking from hiding.



You're position is revealed when the attack hits or misses, which allows you to remain hidden as you make the attack itself.

I would say this is where the DM comes in. I want my games to work somewhat like the real world with addition of magic and monsters, not a computer game where you can take advantage of an edge case.

You have to lean out far enough to see, far enough to throw/shoot. You don't need to move into a square with no obstruction but you can't shoot through a wall. If you lean out far enough to attack, you're leaning out far enough to be seen. Whether or not you are seen is situational.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would say this is where the DM comes in. I want my games to work somewhat like the real world with addition of magic and monsters, not a computer game where you can take advantage of an edge case.

You have to lean out far enough to see, far enough to throw/shoot. You don't need to move into a square with no obstruction but you can't shoot through a wall. If you lean out far enough to attack, you're leaning out far enough to be seen. Whether or not you are seen is situational.

For me, this all works out via the rules as I've read them.

Using a rogue for the sake of example... the rogue out in the open throws a dagger at an enemy also out in the open using his Action. He then Moves behind a stone wall gaining total cover. He then uses his Bonus (cunning) action to make a DEX (Stealth) check to try and Hide, rendering him not only unseen (due to the cover) but also unheard, unsmelt, and unfelt (assuming the Stealth check is higher than the enemy's Passive Perception.)

This rogue is now considered Hidden. Thus in the next round, the rogue can now lean out or above the wall, use his Action to make an attack with Advantage (after which point he's no longer considered Hidden), then lean back behind or below the wall again and regain total cover. He then can still Move if he'd like, and use his Bonus action to try and Hide again if he remains behind total cover (or other Heavily Obscuring terrain.) And the rogue can do this ad infinitum-- attack with Advantage, move behind total cover, make a DEX (Stealth) check, and if that check is higher than his next target's Passive Perception, the next attack is with Advantage. This is how I have always interpreted the Stealth rules personally. And the way to counter the rogue is for enemies to either move their own position such that the Heavily Obscuring terrain no longer blocks sight (IE they move around the wall and see the rogue standing there in broad daylight)... or other attackers Ready their actions to attack the rogue when he pops out from behind the total cover. And this attack occurs directly after the rogue has made their attack with Advantage (which has broken his Hidden status) and before the rogue can duck back behind the cover. For this particular attack against the rogue, I usually grant the "half-cover" +2 AC bonus to the rogue in that time of the lean.

Now that being said, I also have added a personal house-rule on top of these rules just because I wanted to make my rogue players have to think a little bit more in terms of positioning. I made the rule in my game that you cannot gain Advantage from being Hidden on an attack if it comes from the same position you attacked with Advantage from being Hidden last time. Your next attack must come from a position at least 10 feet away the previous one to gain Advantage on it.

So while a rogue could be behind a tree, attack with Advantage (assuming a higher Stealth check), then duck back behind that tree again to regain total cover for the rest of the round... if he remains behind that tree he cannot make another Stealth check to re-Hide. In my visualization, the enemy knows exactly where the rogue is and can defend from him as normal. For the rogue to re-Hide, he would have to move from behind that tree, through some obscuring terrain at least 10 feet, then arrive behind some other tree or Heavily Obscuring terrain and then make the new DEX (Stealth) check.

But that's just a personal add-on, and is not I don't believe, a part of the actual generic Stealth rules as they appear in the books as I've read them.

 

[Oofta]

For me, this all works out via the rules as I've read them.

Using a rogue for the sake of example... the rogue out in the open throws a dagger at an enemy also out in the open using his Action. He then Moves behind a stone wall gaining total cover. He then uses his Bonus (cunning) action to make a DEX (Stealth) check to try and Hide, rendering him not only unseen (due to the cover) but also unheard, unsmelt, and unfelt (assuming the Stealth check is higher than the enemy's Passive Perception.)

This rogue is now considered Hidden.
...

I agree that they are hidden from any creature that cannot clearly see them and that have passive perception lower than the stealth check.

That doesn't mean the enemy forgets the rogue exists and that he just saw the rogue go around the corner. The enemy may well expect the rogue to attack again in a few moments and keep an eye on the spot. Or the enemy simply walks around the corner.

Thus in the next round, the rogue can now lean out or above the wall
...

I would say that at that moment the rogue can be clearly seen and are no longer necessarily hidden. In some cases the enemy still won't notice them in my game, but there is no magic "hidden" condition that persists once there is line of sight.

All of this is left up to the DM of course, the rules are purposefully vague to allow people to run the kind of game they want.

 

[Hriston]

I would say this is where the DM comes in. I want my games to work somewhat like the real world with addition of magic and monsters, not a computer game where you can take advantage of an edge case.

Computer game? Maybe you're confused. I'm talking about combat resolution mechanics, which are necessarily an abstraction. The resulting fiction can be whatever you prefer it to be. Also, what edge case? Attacking from a hidden position behind an object is how attacking from hiding usually happens, no?

You have to lean out far enough to see, far enough to throw/shoot. You don't need to move into a square with no obstruction but you can't shoot through a wall. If you lean out far enough to attack, you're leaning out far enough to be seen. Whether or not you are seen is situational.

Wasn't that already resolved by the contest that established you were hidden in the first place?

 

[Oofta]

Computer game? Maybe you're confused. I'm talking about combat resolution mechanics, which are necessarily an abstraction. The resulting fiction can be whatever you prefer it to be. Also, what edge case? Attacking from a hidden position behind an object is how attacking from hiding usually happens, no?

I don't believe in RAW as in the rules and nothing but the rules interpretation of the game. The rules can't be read like computer code without adding in a good dose of common sense.

Can you fire from around a corner by leaning out? Of course. You don't have to move into the unobstructed square. But you do have to lean out, at which point if you can see you can be seen. That's just basic logic not explicitly stated by the rules.

Wasn't that already resolved by the contest that established you were hidden in the first place?

The moment someone has clear line of sight you may no longer be hidden. The key point is that you were hidden when there was no line of sight. The moment the situation changes, the moment there is line of sight the situation changes. The DM needs to make the call of how to resolve that. Is the rogue automatically seen? Did the enemy look away?

 

[nswanson27]

This is started to go down some very worn paths. There's been plenty of sage advice and other discussions about this already.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Computer game? Maybe you're confused. I'm talking about combat resolution mechanics, which are necessarily an abstraction. The resulting fiction can be whatever you prefer it to be. Also, what edge case? Attacking from a hidden position behind an object is how attacking from hiding usually happens, no?

I think that he is referring to the way this works like a computer glitch or a two-dimensional character: Being able to sight and attack along an infinitely thin flat vertical plane without having anything poking out.

Wasn't that already resolved by the contest that established you were hidden in the first place?

Total cover means that they can't see you, no matter what you got on your Stealth check: all of you is behind it.
In order to look or attack around the cover, you need to expose your head (and arm(s) if you're attacking something) by moving it out from behind the cover. At which point stealth becomes important because you are no longer in total cover and it is possible to see you. Whether or not your movement or exposed part(s) are actually seen will depend upon stealth now.

The exception that I can think of is when your cover is transparent such as a wall of force. If you're completely behind that, you are still in total cover, but you can see though it and your opponents can see you through it. You will still have to stick an arm or something out from behind it in order to attack something on the other side though.

Or a different exception is when you're using an indirect attack, like just tossing a bottle of alchemists fire blindly from behind cover: you could just lob something over the top without having to stick anything out from behind it.