D&D 5E Rogues are Awesome. Is it the Tasha's Effect?

[SirMoogle]

Well, I'm excited for my DM's next campaign to start, where I get to play the new Soulknife subclass. The features look pretty cool, and definitely would be of use for a Changeling who can kill without a trace.

 

[fearsomepirate]

From the PHB: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly"

That leaves a ton of leeway for the DM. For example, if the rogue is behind the lone tree on a barren plane, they are hidden while behind it. However, the moment they lean out to get line of sight to their target the rogue is clearly seen and no longer hidden. On the other hand, the DM may say that the target is not paying close enough attention and it works.

Also from the PHB:

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

5e's combat system is, like everything else in the game, not very granular; it does not, for example, break down a weapon attack into separate "preparation" and "striking" components. Drawing an arrow out of the quiver, nocking it, aiming, and loosing are all part of the attack. You can even add "drawing the weapon" to an attack at times.

In a granular system, we could break down precisely how long this process is, and whether a creature has time to react to it in order to properly raise his shield, gain facing angle, etc. But 5e just waves all of that away. The parsing (and haggling over) precise timing cuts two ways. The creature is not able to do anything to the player until after hitting or missing is resolved, but neither can the player insist that he somehow did everything extra quickly and can work in a second attack or bonus action.

 

[Oofta]

Also from the PHB:

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

5e's combat system is, like everything else in the game, not very granular; it does not, for example, break down a weapon attack into separate "preparation" and "striking" components. Drawing an arrow out of the quiver, nocking it, aiming, and loosing are all part of the attack. You can even add "drawing the weapon" to an attack at times.

In a granular system, we could break down precisely how long this process is, and whether a creature has time to react to it in order to properly raise his shield, gain facing angle, etc. But 5e just waves all of that away. The parsing (and haggling over) precise timing cuts two ways. The creature is not able to do anything to the player until after hitting or missing is resolved, but neither can the player insist that he somehow did everything extra quickly and can work in a second attack or bonus action.

If someone can clearly see you, you are not hidden. There's no indication of the amount of time the rogue must be seen. In my game the first time popping out from cover might gain advantage, on subsequent attempts if the rogue does not change position and nothing else changes it is likely it will not. I'm quite clear on that in a session zero if someone is thinking of making a rogue. It's not like you need advantage to get sneak attack, players who have played rogues in my campaign almost always get sneak attack and seem to do just fine for damage.

It's up to the DM and the group to find the right balance. Since it's going to vary from table to table and there is no "right" answer I don't see a reason to argue.

 

[Mistwell]

Optional rule.

Mostly for ranged rogues which I pointed out around 2015 iirc.

Yes but the reason they made the optional rule is the issue I am talking about - DMs kept debating if ranged rogues could hide often or not. They intended for them to be able to hide often but to settle the debate they handed out this optional rule for DMs to use if they just didn't want to deal with the hide difficulties.

 

[Mistwell]

How does your DM handle traps and such? Is it the Perception/Investigation/Thieves tools combo? I hate that because that's too much depending on dumb luck and I don't think rogues should have high wisdom scores or else they would have gone into a more sensible profession.
\

Yes we use Perception, investigation, and thieves tools. Don't need high wisdom - trained plus expertise does it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

If someone can clearly see you, you are not hidden. There's no indication of the amount of time the rogue must be seen. In my game the first time popping out from cover might gain advantage, on subsequent attempts if the rogue does not change position and nothing else changes it is likely it will not. I'm quite clear on that in a session zero if someone is thinking of making a rogue. It's not like you need advantage to get sneak attack, players who have played rogues in my campaign almost always get sneak attack and seem to do just fine for damage.

It's up to the DM and the group to find the right balance. Since it's going to vary from table to table and there is no "right" answer I don't see a reason to argue.

Yes, it's really left quite open. The two relevant parts are the sidebar in the Using Ability Scores section that details Hiding, and the section in the Combat chapter that details unseen attackers. That's basically it unless you look for rulings in the Twitterverse.

It's left very open to interpretation. It's clear that you need to have exceptional or unusual circumstances to be able to step out of hiding and make a melee attack, but shooting a ranged weapon from a hiding spot is pretty strongly implied to be allowed because a hidden attacker doesn't reveal their position until the attack hits or misses, which is after the attack roll has been made.

The stealth rules in general are all very "stealth and hiding works in the most common sense way possible according to the DM and here's the opposed check to use to adjudicate it," which is perfectly fine until you get abilities that tell you to stop using common sense for this specific exception. Which is to say, halfling naturally stealthy or wood elf mask of the wild. Now it feels like the game is telling the DM and players that sometimes common sense doesn't apply. It's just weird.

 

[auburn2]

Guys, if nothing else, Tasha's ended this debate. WOTC has clearly declared Rogues were supposed to be able to get advantage fairly often, with Steady Aim. If it wasn't already obvious, given the Lightfoot Halfling ability was about this concept.

But this is much more restrictive than hide, specifically because of the mobility factor.

 

[Mistwell]

But this is much more restrictive than hide, specifically because of the mobility factor.

Is it? If you hide in the same spot you were hiding before...you cannot move. If you move to a new spot to hide...you have to move to a spot behind cover that wasn't the spot you were in before. Seems about as restrictive to me.

 

[auburn2]

Yes, it's really left quite open. The two relevant parts are the sidebar in the Using Ability Scores section that details Hiding, and the section in the Combat chapter that details unseen attackers. That's basically it unless you look for rulings in the Twitterverse.

It's left very open to interpretation. It's clear that you need to have exceptional or unusual circumstances to be able to step out of hiding and make a melee attack, but shooting a ranged weapon from a hiding spot is pretty strongly implied to be allowed because a hidden attacker doesn't reveal their position until the attack hits or misses, which is after the attack roll has been made.

Yes if he is not visible when firing. Hiding in bushes and shooting out through them might do this. Hiding outside of an enemies darkvision range when in darkness definitely would do it. Hiding behind a wall or a tree and leaning out to shoot likewise clearly would not.

Nothing in then rules says you don't reveal your position until you attack hits. All it says is an attack reveals your position. You can reveal your position before you attack too and if this is your interpretation than the Rogue can hide behinds something and then the next turn use his entire movement to walk right past enemies in broad daylight and go up to the one he wants to attack and attack him while still "hidden". From a logical point of view if stepping out from behind cover where you can be seen to make an attack does not reveal you then why would stepping out from behind cover and walking 30 feet? he is seen either way.

Really the key question is this - you start your turn obscured (can not be seen) and hidden can you attack THROUGH whatever is obscuring you without moving from behind it to where you will be "seen". If you can then you can stay hidden all the way up until you attack then yes you have advantage on the attack. Note after you attack in this case you are still unseen, but you are no longer hidden. If you can't do this then you can't attack while hidden.

 

[Oofta]

Is it? If you hide in the same spot you were hiding before...you cannot move. If you move to a new spot to hide...you have to move to a spot behind cover that wasn't the spot you were in before. Seems about as restrictive to me.

You can be targeted while standing in the same place. One of the issues I have (well other than it breaks my pretty low standard for immersion) with hiding in the same spot time and time again is that nobody can target the rogue unless they can move to get line of sight.