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

[Maxperson]

Going strictly by RAW, being hidden is not what gives you advantage, being "unseen" is what gives you advantage. When you "pop out" you are not "unseen".

But if you come out to attack, you don't lose it until after the attack happens. Per the Unseen Attackers section.

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

As I note above, without magic or some other such way to hide in plain sight, you cannot ever attack from hiding, since if you can see them, they can see you.

The more sensical way to read it is that you have that split second when you pop out to attack that they cannot react properly and you stay "unseen" until the attack hits or misses.

 

[auburn2]

Unless you are invisible or some other magical camouflage, if you can see them, they can see you. I don't care if it's because you're in heave foliage, on a roof, or in a tree, some part of you will be visible if you can see them.

That is not true. You can be completely obscured by foilage. Or if you are in darkness and the enemy is in dim or bright light or anything else that stops vision.

Think about playing hide and seek as a kid, you can hide in the bush and you can see "it" looking for you but he can't see you unless he walks right up to the bush. He might know you are in the bush (d&d terms "not hidden") but he still cant see you. Taking this to D&D if he does this and walks right up to the bush during combat and is close enough to see you or any part of you clearly through the breaks in the leaves, then yes you would not be hidden. Likewise if he walks around the other side of the boulder or climbs up on it and looks down on you then you are no longer hidden.

If you are talking about cover and that cover is not translucent then you are correct - if you can see him, he can see you and that is why you can't jump out and shoot with advantage.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think hde is saying you come out from behind something.

He absolutely is. It's very clear during the interview. I don't think it's open to interpretation, given how often he repeats it, and how often he says it should be common for a ranged rogue to be able to do this. Your view of this would make it incredibly uncommon.

The examples he gives are all examples where he is still hidden behind whatever he is hiding in/behind (foliage, tree tops, roof).

How are you still hidden ON A ROOF? You emerge from behind the cover of a roof for a split second to make your attack. That's pretty clear. He's not saying you're somehow attacking THROUGH a roof. You obviously must "emerge" from behind the cover of the roof "for a split second" to "make the attack" that will "get that [hidden] benefit".

It is not going out from behind a wall or a boulder and he says that in the end of this paragraph you quoted: "really drill into the heart of the rule, if you are hidden and you can make the attack from the place where you are hidden"

He talks about this for like 10 minutes and is consistent through the whole thing, you nmust attack from where you are hidden, no coming out and attaclking. He says the same in the quote from sage advice.

Yes and he is also saying you can shoot or attack AROUND the cover you're hidden behind, without moving from that spot, by emerging out the side of it to attack. He gives an example for ranged and for melee. Both of them require you not shooting THROUGH the cover you're hiding behind, but emerging out from it without leaving your space. A corner of a building you're hiding behind for melee, or a roof you're hiding behind for ranged, he says you emerge for a split second and attack without moving from your space. That is what I am talking about. There is no getting around he's saying that's a valid situation, AND INTENDED SITUATION, for hide.

Look, you're not going to explain away the words "split second where they emerge just to make the attack they get that benefit." Those words have no meaning if the way you thought it worked was the way he was talking about.

So now we come down to the question - are you going to continue to misrepresent what he said, or are you going to admit the way you run it isn't how he is saying it was intended? The later is fine, just stop claiming he's saying something different.

 

[Mistwell]

Going strictly by RAW, being hidden is not what gives you advantage, being "unseen" is what gives you advantage. When you "pop out" you are not "unseen".

Now being hidden by definition is being "unseen and unheard" so logically someone hidden RAW should always get the benefit.

The thing is you have come up with an alternative definition of "hidden" where someone can be hidden without being "unseen". That is why you are struggling with the concept.

What is it you think they meant by losing the benefits of being hidden AFTER YOU HIT OR MISS with your attack? Why is it you think they changed the rules to clarify those words if they were not, as Crawford said in the interview, addressing this very thing? What else would he mean by the words "split second where they emerge just to make the attack they get that benefit" if you think he means "pop out means you're immediately seen" which would be the exact opposite of what he said? If you can see your target then almost always the target could see you so your ruling would make it nearly impossible to ever get the benefits of hiding for rogue's sneak attack which is again the opposite of what Crawford says in the interview. Come on dude, it's OK if you're running it different than the Rules As Intended as stated by Crawford but this is ridiculous already.

 

[auburn2]

But if you come out to attack, you don't lose it until after the attack happens. Per the Unseen Attackers section.

The unseen attackers section says "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard- when you make your attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

It says WHEN you make your attack, not UNTIL you make your attack. If you "come out" before you make your attack you are not hidden "when" you make your attack, because you are not unseen.

Coming out of hiding is covered in the PHB on page 177 in the blue sectiion: "if you come out of hiding and approach a creature it usually sees you" it does say in there a DM may rule otherwise "however under certain circumstances a DM may allow you to stay hidden ... allowing you to gain advantage on the attack roll before you are seen"

As a DM your job is to be arbitor of the rules, if my player can explain why the enemy still can't see him, or how he comes out specifically so the enemy won't automatically see him when he "comes out" then I might allow it, but that is going to be situation specific. It is not going to be i hide behind the one tree on this open field every turn and I am still unseen every time I move out and shoot at the enemy with my bow.

 

[auburn2]

He absolutely is. It's very clear during the interview. I don't think it's open to interpretation, given how often he repeats it, and how often he says it should be common for a ranged rogue to be able to do this. Your view of this would make it incredibly uncommon.


How are you still hidden ON A ROOF? You emerge from behind the cover of a roof for a split second to make your attack. That's pretty clear. He's not saying you're somehow attacking THROUGH a roof. You obviously must "emerge" from behind the cover of the roof "for a split second" to "make the attack" that will "get that [hidden] benefit".

Yes and he is also saying you can shoot or attack AROUND the cover you're hidden behind, without moving from that spot, by emerging out the side of it to attack. He gives an example for ranged and for melee. Both of them require you not shooting THROUGH the cover you're hiding behind, but emerging out from it without leaving your space. A corner of a building you're hiding behind for melee, or a roof you're hiding behind for ranged, he says you emerge for a split second and attack without moving from your space. That is what I am talking about. There is no getting around he's saying that's a valid situation, AND INTENDED SITUATION, for hide.

Look, you're not going to explain away the words "split second where they emerge just to make the attack they get that benefit." Those words have no meaning if the way you thought it worked was the way he was talking about.

So now we come down to the question - are you going to continue to misrepresent what he said, or are you going to admit the way you run it isn't how he is saying it was intended? The later is fine, just stop claiming he's saying something different.

I don't understand what he meant when he said you are still hidden on a roof, I don't think he explained that example very well, but thematically there could be something he was thinking about when he said that, darkness for example.

But he said many, many times exactly what I am saying. When I listen to that interview, my interpretation, with the exception of the roof, is 100% consistent with my interpretaion of the rules and my understanding of the intent. The point that sticks to me and what he says over and over and over is that you have to engage from the place where you are hidden. No going to a place where you are not hidden to shoot. You are picking the one exception which could be construed to be contrary to what he put in writing in his post, in writing in the PHB and said multiple times in the interview.

You are not going to explain away the words: "shooting from cover and running out into the open are not the same thing" or "to really drill into the heart of the rule, if you are hidden and you can make the attack from the place where you are hidden"

How do you "emerge from the place where you are hidden" while still being "in the place where you are hidden"? And if we are going to use a grid and spacing, if your space does not have "full cover" (broken LOS to all 4 corners) then the enemy by the rules has line of sight to you if you are in that space. You can not hide in such a space RAW unless you are obscured in some other way and you can't "emerge" while being in a space he can see you in to start with.

 

[auburn2]

What is it you think they meant by losing the benefits of being hidden AFTER YOU HIT OR MISS with your attack? Why is it you think they changed the rules to clarify those words if they were not, as Crawford said in the interview, addressing this very thing?

I think they mean exactly what they said in the rules - After you hit or miss you are no longer hidden. Meaning even if you meet all the other criteria and you are still unseen, you are not hidden. The enemy knows where you are. That does not mean the same as the enemy can see you.

If you are hidden and attack from that position and do not hide and do not move most of the time you will now be "unseen" (until the enemy gets in position to see you). You can continue to attack over and over again from the same position and you will continue to get advantage as long as the enemy can't see you. The difference between that and hidden is they know exactly where you are. Same if you attack while under greater invisiblity, you can keep attacking with advantage over and over again, but you are not hidden until you take an action to hide.

Let me ask you this - why restrict this to Rogues if what you are saying is true? What if my archer runs behind a wall - he is now unseen, why can't he "emerge" every turn and shoot with advantage? After all he is unseen
before he attacks" and by the rules has advantage from being unseen. If "emerging" does not expose the Rogue then it does not expose the Archer either. Why do you think Rogues are the only class that can do this?

 

[Maxperson]

That is not true. You can be completely obscured by foilage. Or if you are in darkness and the enemy is in dim or bright light or anything else that stops vision.

If it blocks you from view, they are blocked from view. It's how vision works. You cannot see anyone that cannot possibly see you. Not without invisibility, a one way mirror or some other exception. 100% obscurement will work both ways.

Think about playing hide and seek as a kid, you can hide in the bush and you can see "it" looking for you but he can't see you unless he walks right up to the bush. He might know you are in the bush (d&d terms "not hidden") but he still cant see you.

No. He COULD see you, but it was little more difficult. I often saw kids doing that, but not always, because some part of them was always visible. But here's the thing. If you are in foliage that thick, you aren't shooting out of it. It's going to be too thick to use a bow or crossbow, and there will be sticks in your way when you fire.

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn’t listen to the podcast, but I have always run it the way @Mistwell describes as well. To me, it is clear from just the PHB.

Sure, if you are a melee rogue and you hide, then next turn run out and stab someone and you don’t get advantage, but if you are using a ranged weapon, you have advantage on that first shot (though afterwards, you are not hidden).

I allow it on the first shot "surprise" but not on additional attacks.

5E stealth rules fml.

 

[auburn2]

If it blocks you from view, they are blocked from view. It's how vision works. You cannot see anyone that cannot possibly see you. Not without invisibility, a one way mirror or some other exception. 100% obscurement will work both ways.

No. He COULD see you, but it was little more difficult. I often saw kids doing that, but not always, because some part of them was always visible. But here's the thing. If you are in foliage that thick, you aren't shooting out of it. It's going to be too thick to use a bow or crossbow, and there will be sticks in your way when you fire.

No most people do not have enough visual acuity to see other people in dense foilage from more than a few feet away. In d&D terms you are fully obscured. They might be able to tell where you are from shadows, or lack of light passing through an area, or a dark area you see through the leaves or sunlight reflecting off of your glasses, the way the branches are bent over but that is different than seeing you. You have to get very close to actually see someone in such circumstances. That is how snipers commonly deploy (I am talking modern soldiers here) and you can not see them at all except from very close, like a few feet away ..... but they can see you from miles.

Now an eagle or other Raptor - they probably can actually see you inside bushes from a fairly long way off but their visual acuity is far better and that is what enables them to do this.

Another one is the most common. You are in darkness looking at a lit area. You can see the people in the lit area, the people in the lit area can't see you.