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

[jayoungr]

That's what you have been talking about, but what I've been talking about is that he might very well have failed, because the circumstances were against him.

So, just to be clear, are you taking the same position as my DM, which is that if a rogue begins the combat in sight of an enemy, that rogue cannot attempt to hide during the combat because the enemy has seen him?

There are many sentences around stealth, in particular the one that says that you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly.

In my reading, that just means you can't "John Cena away" or hide behind a bath towel.

If you pop out to attack from behind a pillar while a creature is watching that pillar, you are not hidden, even before you make your attack. Simple, clear and absolutely in line with the RAW.

Not in line with the part that says you gain the benefit of being an unseen attacker after making a successful stealth check to hide.

But if you have made it obvious that you have hidden there already, that you went back to the same place, and there is nowhere else to hide, and the target is watching the pillar

All of this is what the stealth check is meant to cover. If you succeed on it, then it's NOT obvious that you went back to the same place. The roll represents your ability to get back there without the target realizing that you have done so. The factors of "nowhere else to hide" and "the target is watching the pillar" are factors that may contribute to the DC of the check.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, I qualify it as being different, and not to my taste. You are the only one applying values and being judgemental here.

“I’m not judging you, I’m just saying what you’re doing isn’t roleplaying! It’s totally fine if you like not roleplaying, no judgement here!”

That’s literally what you sound like right now.

 

[Lyxen]

Why does it only give advantage in some cases? Page 177 is almost entirely about the circumstances in which hiding can be attempted, and it does say that that is up to the DM. But the only reference to advantage covers the specific situation in which you emerge from cover and approach a distracted creature.

Page 192, on the other hand, says that once a hide check has been attempted successfully, certain conditions apply. (Was going to quote it, but I see @Swarmkeeper has already done so.)

They apply "until you are discovered" as per the standard hiding rules. Three examples:

• You are hiding behind a pillar, the target is 30 feet away, does not know that you are there. So if you peek around or even pop out to shoot an arrow, he will not get enough warning and you have advantage.
• You are hiding behind a pillar, the target is 10 feet away and knows that you are there because he saw you dart there and there is nowhere else to hide. So he is watching the pillar. As soon as you peek out even before attacking, he sees you, there is no reason to have advantage on your attack.
• You are hiding in a large buch which completely obscures you, but you can see outside because you are close to the edge. You can see your target but he can't see you, and you do not even need to pop out to attack. Even he is watching the bush, he has no idea where the arrow will come from and you have advantage.

All these cases are supported right out of the book, completely RAW. After that, all the decisions of the protagonists matters, who is watching what, how, what they are doing about it, and the DM adjudicates like for any situation in the game.

 

[Lyxen]

“I’m not judging you, I’m just saying what you’re doing isn’t roleplaying! It’s totally fine if you like not roleplaying, no judgement here!”

That’s literally what you sound like right now.

Words from the Devs in the DMG: "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

But just as they are, I'm not judging, the game can be played in multiple fashions. There are also drawbacks to my approach, and some tables prefer just rolling with it.

 

[jayoungr]

You are hiding behind a pillar, the target is 10 feet away and knows that you are there because he saw you dart there and there is nowhere else to hide.

In other words, you didn't successfully take the Hide action in the first place. This isn't a case where you've lost the benefits of hiding--it's a case where you never had them to begin with.

 

[Charlaquin]

Words from the Devs in the DMG: "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."

But just as they are, I'm not judging, the game can be played in multiple fashions. There are also drawbacks to my approach, and some tables prefer just rolling with it.

The approach to dice rolling the DMG describes as “roll with it” is not what @Ovinomancer is advocating here, and claiming it is is part of what’s making you come across as extremely judgmental.

 

[Lyxen]

So, just to be clear, are you taking the same position as my DM, which is that if a rogue begins the combat in sight of an enemy, that rogue cannot attempt to hide during the combat because the enemy has seen him?

Not at all, I'm just saying that I will take into account the fact that the enemy knows that there is a rogue around somewhere and might take some countermeasures to protect themselves. It might make the job more difficult for the rogue (or not, if the enemy is incompetent or stupid, it happens as well), but certainly not impossible, especially if the rogue takes that into account.

In my reading, that just means you can't "John Cena away" or hide behind a bath towel.

Why are you restricting that sentence to this. It's a simple english sentence.

Not in line with the part that says you gain the benefit of being an unseen attacker after making a successful stealth check to hide.

It is perfectly in line, because you only gain it while you are hidden, which is "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding". So if oyu are discovered before you make your attack, you do not gain the benefit of that section, obviously.

All of this is what the stealth check is meant to cover. If you succeed on it, then it's NOT obvious that you went back to the same place. The roll represents your ability to get back there without being noticed by the target. The factors of "nowhere else to hide" and "the target is watching the pillar" are factors that may contribute to the DC of the check.

And it's exactly what I've been saying from the start. I'm not forbidding the rogue from trying to hide, but it will be more difficult for him to hide, and it will be easier for the target to spot him. Disadvantage on the stealth check because there is only one place to hide and advantage on the perception because the target knows where to look.

 

[Oofta]

@Ovinomancer isnt arguing that you aren’t following RAW. They’re arguing that your interpretation of the RAW is not the only valid one.

I have no problem with other people's rulings. I've said that repeatedly. What I have a problem with is being told is that my chain of logic is flawed because I run my game differently.

 

[CleverNickName]

How about a pillar or a lightfoot halfling’s Medium-sized ally?

Concealment isn’t a game term in 5e, I assume you mean obscurement? I feel like if you’re sufficiently obscured to hide, you shouldn’t really need to peek out to attack.

Sorry, yes...I meant that being obscured isn't enough to just keep going in and out of hiding. It'll let you get that one attack in, with Advantage, but that's as far as it goes. Being obscured isn't enough to let rogues effectively become invisible, even at the cost of their Bonus actions at my table.

Cover is much more straightforward: if you have cover, you have a bonus to your AC. So if you are using your Bonus action to hide behind something that would give you a cover bonus to AC, then yes: that is enough to let you peek around a corner, duck under a table, etc. and continue to Hide every round as your Bonus action. A lightfoot halfling's Medium-sized ally does not grant Cover-with-a-capital-C, so no: you need more than that to keep ducking in and out of view at my table. It'll let you get that one attack in with Advantage, but that's as far as that will go.

Anyway, this is how I do it at my table. I'm not suggesting anyone should do likewise.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sorry, yes...I meant that being obscured isn't enough to just keep going in and out of hiding. It'll let you get that one attack in, with Advantage, but that's as far as it goes. Being obscured isn't enough to let rogues effectively become invisible, even at the cost of their Bonus actions at my table.

Cover is much more straightforward: if you have cover, you have a bonus to your AC. So if you are using your Bonus action to hide behind something that would give you a cover bonus to AC, then yes: that is enough to let you peek around a corner, duck under a table, etc. and continue to Hide every round as your Bonus action. A lightfoot halfling's Medium-sized ally does not grant Cover-with-a-capital-C, so no: you need more than that to keep ducking in and out of view at my table. It'll let you get that one attack in with Advantage, but that's as far as that will go.

Anyway, this is how I do it at my table. I'm not suggesting anyone should do likewise.

Fair enough. Though, it seems to me like this ruling makes the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy feature useless.