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

[auburn2]

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 generally have to move to attack.

 

[auburn2]

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

I bolded a different part of your quote. If you can be seen when you make an attack you are no longer "unseen" and therefore no longer "hidden"

There is no need to see how much time it takes to raise a shield, as soon as you poke your head out you are not
unseen".

While I am at it - you have disadvantage on enemies you can't see, so if your arguement is that sticking your head out and flinging a dagger is not enough time for an enemy to "see" you, then it is logically not enough time for you to "see" your enemy either. So you have disadvantage plus advantage. Now if you can see your enemy from your hidden position that is a different story, but if you are behind a wall or tree or something like that you can't "see" him while back there, your enemy is not "hidden" because he did not take the "hide" action but he is "unseen".

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Right but how hard is that? Is it really harder than anyone hitting them from range?

 

[Mistwell]

You generally have to move to attack.

From range? No.

 

[Mistwell]

I bolded a different part of your quote. If you can be seen when you make an attack you are no longer "unseen" and therefore no longer "hidden"

There is no need to see how much time it takes to raise a shield, as soon as you poke your head out you are not
unseen".

While I am at it - you have disadvantage on enemies you can't see, so if your arguement is that sticking your head out and flinging a dagger is not enough time for an enemy to "see" you, then it is logically not enough time for you to "see" your enemy either. So you have disadvantage plus advantage. Now if you can see your enemy from your hidden position that is a different story, but if you are behind a wall or tree or something like that you can't "see" him while back there, your enemy is not "hidden" because he did not take the "hide" action but he is "unseen".

All of the WOTC rulings on the topic disagree with how you're judging these rules. Which is fine. But, just so you know, that doesn't appear to be how most people run it due to those rulings from WOTC folks. [And of note, your ruling meaningfully nerfs the Lightfoot Halfling hiding ability]

And, again, this appears to be why WOTC made Steady Aim - to smooth out the rulings at different tables.

 

[Oofta]

Right but how hard is that? Is it really harder than anyone hitting them from range?

It can be significant. Rogue is behind tree, bad guy cannot target them unless using an area effect. Rogue steps out, attacks, steps back behind tree. Rinse and repeat, rogue can never be targeted directly.

As opposed to guy standing out in the open, not moving that can be seen and targeted by the enemy? I think that's a pretty huge difference.

 

[Oofta]

All of the WOTC rulings on the topic disagree with how you're judging these rules. Which is fine. But, just so you know, that doesn't appear to be how most people run it due to those rulings from WOTC folks. [And of note, your ruling meaningfully nerfs the Lightfoot Halfling hiding ability]

And, again, this appears to be why WOTC made Steady Aim - to smooth out the rulings at different tables.

What rulings? I don't think it's going to change how I run my game, but I am curious.

 

[tommybahama]

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.

A held action for when the rogue pops out of cover fixes this. My DM uses this against mages that duck behind cover between turns.

 

[Zardnaar]

What rulings? I don't think it's going to change how I run my game, but I am curious.

This I'm not familiar with them either (or care). Make a better PHB scrubs.

Similar thing with errata.

 

[Oofta]

A held action for when the rogue pops out of cover fixes this. My DM uses this against mages that duck behind cover between turns.

Yes, but a held action requires concentration and if the attacker has multiple attacks they only get one (although there could be some debate on that).

I mean, there's always flanking maneuvers but that gets old.