D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[ECMO3]

Yeah, who’s average damage output is the highest varies from level to level. I’m just talking in broad strokes here - there are levels when the rogue outperforms the fighter (if the baseline assumptions are met) and levels where the fighter outperforms the rogue.

When you consider the times a Rogue does not get SA (5%, 10%, 20%?) and action surge; I don't think there are any levels that a Rogue using the attack action will outdamage a fighter using the attack action over a day of combat, unless the fighter you are comparing it to is a pure defensive style.

 

[Plaguescarred]

You have to be unseen to get that advantage, and repeatedly making an attack from the exact same spot every few seconds (revealing where you are), it isn't plausible you remain unseen.

When behind the pillar, you are hidden. When you repeatedly pop out at the same spot, your telegraphed actions reveal yourself before you shoot.

At the end of an attack, you do lose hidden; but DMs are free to adjudicate when you lose hidden otherwise. And in this case, you lose hidden before you attack if you telegraph where you are going to attack from.

You normally have to be unseen to try to hide. Wether you succeed or not, you remain unseen as it comes from other circumstances already in place, be it invisible, heavily obscured, blinded etc.

When you hide behind a pillar, you are unseen and unheard. That people can assume your location doesn't make you less able to become unheard. All it does is facilitate guessing your possible location when there's less location you can be in. But Knowing one's location is not a clause preventing it to hide, it's being clearly seen or making noise that does.

If you are hidden behind a pillar when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses as per Unseen Attacker & Target. But the advantage on the attack roll still apply even if you were not hidden, because you are originally unseen to even try to hide.

Hiding in combat is not easy, it requires specific ciscumstance and ressource, mainly be unseen, and spend an action in order to do so. Most combattant thus don't hide in combat due to that.

 

[Lyxen]

There's no abuse of the system to allow this every turn -- the system handles it perfectly fine, almost as if it expects it.

There an abuse of the stupidity of the NPCs, as I can absolutely guarantee that if a DM was doing exactly the same thing to the same PCs, they would complain about it.

Sure, you've gotten to the first O in the OODA loop pretty easily. Now you need to Orient, Decide, and Act in a way that doesn't grant the opponent, who's already in their Acting, advantage. If someone attacks you from hiding (absent the skulker feat and missing), they're no longer hidden from you after the attack. However, at the beginning of the attack, they are unseen, and so get the unseen attacker advantages.

It does not work that way. To target someone, you need to see him. When you are behind the pilar, maybe your target does not see you, but you can't see it either and you can't attack him. If he is watching the pilar because he knows you are behind it (because you always do, always hiding there), when you come out to target then attack him, you will no longer be unseen and therefore not have advantage.

See, the reasoning works both ways here, which is why the stealth rules are, even more than almost anything in the rules, guidelines, and the DM can do exactly what he feels right.

Which is why, in turn, I have been careful in this thread to explain that at our tables, a rogue will get disadvantage on his stealth check if he always tries to hide in the same place, and their adversaries will get advantage on their (passive) perception if they are clever enough to notice the pattern. Nothing in the rules prevents you from having a rogue always hide in the same position, just as nothing prevents us from doing it our way, because we think it makes more sense, but also because it tends to push the player to act in a clever fashion, project himself in the game world and be imaginative rather than always parrot the same thing and just roll dices for max damage. To each his own.

 

[Plaguescarred]

a rogue will get disadvantage on his stealth check if he always tries to hide in the same place

That's a fair compromise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There an abuse of the stupidity of the NPCs, as I can absolutely guarantee that if a DM was doing exactly the same thing to the same PCs, they would complain about it.

Oh? What do I get for a broken guarantee, because that works fine at my table. If ypu want to flush that goblin, maneuver!

It does not work that way. To target someone, you need to see him. When you are behind the pilar, maybe your target does not see you, but you can't see it either and you can't attack him. If he is watching the pilar because he knows you are behind it (because you always do, always hiding there), when you come out to target then attack him, you will no longer be unseen and therefore not have advantage.

See, the reasoning works both ways here, which is why the stealth rules are, even more than almost anything in the rules, guidelines, and the DM can do exactly what he feels right.

Which is why, in turn, I have been careful in this thread to explain that at our tables, a rogue will get disadvantage on his stealth check if he always tries to hide in the same place, and their adversaries will get advantage on their (passive) perception if they are clever enough to notice the pattern. Nothing in the rules prevents you from having a rogue always hide in the same position, just as nothing prevents us from doing it our way, because we think it makes more sense, but also because it tends to push the player to act in a clever fashion, project himself in the game world and be imaginative rather than always parrot the same thing and just roll dices for max damage. To each his own.

Ah, so the monster just has nothing to do but watch the pillar! How silly of me, I didn't realize the life of leisure and idleness monsters have around hiding PCs that they can be so attentive. Or is it that monsters have supernatural ability to split awareness such that they are 110% aware of everything on the battlefield at all times? Missed that line in my rulebook. Mine just says 'usually alert.'

 

[Lyxen]

Oh? What do I get for a broken guarantee, because that works fine at my table. If ypu want to flush that goblin, maneuver!

I personally think that it looks silly, experienced adventurers and powerful monsters always getting caught by an adversary popping out at the exact same place, but if you want to play dumb monsters and adventurers, it's your game, you do whatever you want. I simply expect more creativity and cleverness from everyone around the table, I guess. We don't play Dolts and Dummies, that's all.

Ah, so the monster just has nothing to do but watch the pillar! How silly of me, I didn't realize the life of leisure and idleness monsters have around hiding PCs that they can be so attentive. Or is it that monsters have supernatural ability to split awareness such that they are 110% aware of everything on the battlefield at all times? Missed that line in my rulebook. Mine just says 'usually alert.'

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."

Again, I prefer to think of my adventurers (and of course their adversaries) as really alert, prowling around like Conan, rather than just bumbling around. But again, the rules support both types of play. Note that the Dev are probably more on my side, because by default they recommend that all creatures keep track of the location of invisible creatures that are not hidden. For me, that is a level of alertness way beyond being careful about the sniping rogue/goblin always popping up from behind the same pillar.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I personally think that it looks silly, experienced adventurers and powerful monsters always getting caught by an adversary popping out at the exact same place, but if you want to play dumb monsters and adventurers, it's your game, you do whatever you want. I simply expect more creativity and cleverness from everyone around the table, I guess. We don't play Dolts and Dummies, that's all.

Ah, the way I play is dumb. Interesting argument.

Maybe, and here's an idea, I don't imagine monsters and PCs as radar systems but as creatures dealing with combat such that they pit their skill (perception) against their foes skill (stealth) to see who triumphs? That I don't start with, "the troll maintains a laser focus on the pillar you're behind, Bob the Rogue, such that even if you peek, it will 100% see ypu immediately. Same goes for you, Bob2 the Ranger, behind that other pillar. Meanwhile, he's dialed into you, Bob3 the Fighter, and leaves no opening in your melee, or even you, Bob4 the Wizard, waiting to dodge out of the way of your spells!"

Instead, I note that the troll already has a score for it's alertness which is it's passive perception. And that the contest to see if the PC can get the drop on the troll is going to be a contest, much like attack roll vs AC (the troll doesn't want to be hit, either), and so that determines what happens. If the troll beats the PC, then the troll sees the PC as the PC attacks, and isn't caught off guard. If the PC wins, then the troll was distracted momentarily by something else, or was looking to the right of the pillar when the PC rolls out low on the left, or blinks. Whatever. The PC gets the drop on the troll. In other words, I don't pretell the story and then get mad the mechanics tell me a different one and so change the way the mechanics work.

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."

Again, I prefer to think of my adventurers (and of course their adversaries) as really alert, prowling around like Conan, rather than just bumbling around. But again, the rules support both types of play. Note that the Dev are probably more on my side, because by default they recommend that all creatures keep track of the location of invisible creatures that are not hidden. For me, that is a level of alertness way beyond being careful about the sniping rogue/goblin always popping up from behind the same pillar.

Alert is represented by passive perception, not by a mythical FLIR system welded to every creature's head. Being alert doesn't mean you're foolproof. Geez, that one sentence is the cause of so much GM nerfbatting rogues or other sneaky PCs. It's ridonkulous.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Whenever massive arguments like this break out, my method for determining what works best is to just completely strip away all the fluff of the scenario and look purely at the mechanics in play. I see where the arguments are, I determine how I feel about what the mechanics allow for, and then I make a rule. After that, I put the fluff and narrative back into place and handwave any minor discrepancies in the narrative because the entire game has discrepancies between narrative and mechanics all over the place and if I'm willing to handwave it over here, I can handwave it over there.

So the questions become:

- Can a Rogue get the opportunity for extra Sneak Attack damage almost every round and is the game balanced around this idea?

The answer for this is 'Yes'. By being next to an ally adjacent to a foe, you get to add SA bonus damage once a round when you hit. The game expects this to happen and thus it doesn't matter what the narrative of the scene is to generate this mechanical expression. You could say "the rogue gets to add Sneak Attack damage on any attack they make while singing Rule Britannia!" and as far as the game mechanics are concerned, it is balanced for that.

- Can a Rogue attack with Advantage every round?

Right now the answer is "Quite Often", but when it occurs there is a cost associated with it. Rogues can get it via an ally's spell or class feature triggering it (Tripping Attack, Distracting Strike, Wolf Totem Spirit. Guiding Bolt etc.)... by using variant rules (Flanking)... or by spending a Bonus action and not moving for the round (Steady Aim).

So does a Rogue that uses a Bonus action * and * has to succeed on an ability check (the Rogue's rules for Hiding) unbalance the game? My own personal opinion is 'No'. With so many other ways for all characters to gain Advantage on their attacks during combat, I believe the game expects most characters to be able to get it quite often and thus the game has been built for this. In fact (as people have mentioned) the game was written specifically so that a Rogue could use a Bonus action / ability check combo via Cunning Action to possibly gain Advantage each time they use it.

Thus... if the game mechanics have been designed for this expectation... disallowing it purely because (general) you, DM, don't like the fluff representation of it... means that as far as I'm concerned, you are in the wrong here. There's no problem not liking the fluff, but it then falls on you to adjust the fluff so that the mechanics can still be run as the game has been built for them. The Rogue has been designed specifically to possibly gain Advantage on one attack per turn via a Bonus action * and * a successful ability check versus a target's Passive Perception... so do whatever (general) you need to do in your imagining of the scene in front of us to justify using that mechanic.

If (general) you can't imagine any scenario of a Rogue hiding during a combat... just remember you ARE able to imagine that same Rogue at 7th level being able to completely avoid being hurt while engulfed within a massive Fireball, Ice Storm, an ancient dragon's breath attack etc. via their use of Evasion and a successful saving throw. If you are willingly able to accept THAT ridiculous fluff narrative to a game mechanic... you need to try a little harder on the "how does a Rogue hide during combat?" imagined scenario.

 

[Lyxen]

Ah, the way I play is dumb. Interesting argument.

Nope, never said that, what I said is that the adventurers and monsters that get played and that get surprised every round by the same rogue/goblin popping out at the exact same place are dumb. But it can be really funny to play dumb characters, I know, one of my best LARPs (continued as tabletop adventures) was when I was playing a really, really stupid Goblin.

It was not a comment about the game or the players, but about the characters being played.

Maybe, and here's an idea, I don't imagine monsters and PCs as radar systems but as creatures dealing with combat such that they pit their skill (perception) against their foes skill (stealth) to see who triumphs? That I don't start with, "the troll maintains a laser focus on the pillar you're behind, Bob the Rogue, such that even if you peek, it will 100% see ypu immediately. Same goes for you, Bob2 the Ranger, behind that other pillar. Meanwhile, he's dialed into you, Bob3 the Fighter, and leaves no opening in your melee, or even you, Bob4 the Wizard, waiting to dodge out of the way of your spells!"

Instead, I note that the troll already has a score for it's alertness which is it's passive perception. And that the contest to see if the PC can get the drop on the troll is going to be a contest, much like attack roll vs AC (the troll doesn't want to be hit, either), and so that determines what happens. If the troll beats the PC, then the troll sees the PC as the PC attacks, and isn't caught off guard. If the PC wins, then the troll was distracted momentarily by something else, or was looking to the right of the pillar when the PC rolls out low on the left, or blinks. Whatever. The PC gets the drop on the troll. In other words, I don't pretell the story and then get mad the mechanics tell me a different one and so change the way the mechanics work.

Alert is represented by passive perception, not by a mythical FLIR system welded to every creature's head. Being alert doesn't mean you're foolproof. Geez, that one sentence is the cause of so much GM nerfbatting rogues or other sneaky PCs. It's ridonkulous.

First off, rogues were already one of my favourite classes when they were still called thieves and certainly did not get their backstab every round. Second, there are already tons of ways for a rogue to get their sneak attack, and even to get advantage on it if the players are playing them cleverly - which a rogue should be anyway.

Finally, I'm not preventing a rogue from trying to hide in the same place all the time. I'm just pointing out that being that predictable and unimaginative will make it much easier for adversaries to know exactly where he is hidden, therefore (as per the rules), him getting disadvantage, and therefore not negating the perception/stealth context, just making the game and the story more interesting.

And this is not contrary to the mechanics, I'm actually using more of them, to enhance the story, the fight, and the imagination of the players instead of relying sorely on the mechanical aspect of the DPR of the rogue. Because it's a storytelling and roleplaying game, not only a combat game.

 

[Lyxen]

Whenever massive arguments like this break out, my method for determining what works best is to just completely strip away all the fluff of the scenario and look purely at the mechanics in play. I see where the arguments are, I determine how I feel about what the mechanics allow for, and then I make a rule. After that, I put the fluff and narrative back into place and handwave any minor discrepancies in the narrative because the entire game has discrepancies between narrative and mechanics all over the place and if I'm willing to handwave it over here, I can handwave it over there.

And this goes to show that there are many ways to play the game, because my preference is to to exactly the opposite, by the way, as advocated by the PH: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

When such a situation presents itself, I think about what would make the best story, what would look the coolest, be the most memorable, what would please the player so much to have happen to his character and remember. And I make THAT call, and I will handwave off all the rules and mechanics that get in the way of this. Or better yet, I will use them to make it happen, because honestly the rules are more guidelines than anything in this edition.

And the way I'm playing them in the case of stealth is perfectly in line with the RAW and the intent of the game.

Thus... if the game mechanics have been designed for this expectation...

That is a big "if" and for me the answer is clearly no. If you think that it has, then you will have to prove it, through at the very least designers' intent rather than "there is this combo that looks good but relies on circumstances (like having a place to hide) and therefore it is part of the design of the character".

disallowing it purely because (general) you, DM, don't like the fluff representation of it... means that as far as I'm concerned, you are in the wrong here. There's no problem not liking the fluff, but it then falls on you to adjust the fluff so that the mechanics can still be run as the game has been built for them.

Again, many ways to play the game, none is better than another, but if the mechanics are so much more important than the fluff, I will still say that you are not playing the best edition of the game for this. 4e and 3e/PF are much more suited to that style of play.