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

[Lyxen]

Why? I mean, it's fine if you do this, there aren't gamer police, but the argument for why it should warrant disadvantage is unclear. If a creature is paying extra attention, sure, disadvantage is a cool choice, but I question the assumption that creatures automatically have additional focus to bring to bear. A creature in a melee, for instance, already has quite a lot on their plate, and I don't see how they have extra focus to place on watching a specific hiding place. I mean, a competent ally is going to know your hiding tactics and can incorporate distracting attack patterns to draw attention away momentarily, which is all that's needed.

There's this strange, stark space where people seem to be applying the thinking for hiding -- one where all other distractions fall away and it's only this one interaction -- observer vs hider -- that's considered. To me, part of a proficiency in Stealth is an awareness of how to take advantage of momentary distraction, and just hiding in the same place doesn't, to me, justify disadvantage.

Then it's your call as a DM, and it's fine because it's your table.

At our tables we make different calls because the skill of the rogue is inherent in his bonus, but choosing an obvious place to hide makes it more difficult to avoid notice ot to be noticed when you pop out again.

And once more, it's troubling how you constantly do not want to hear that the devs themselves have put the bar of awareness beyond your immediate adversary extremely high, to the point where invisibles (and not the ones with your personal flaw) are tracked effortlessly across a battlefield.

Just watching specifically a certain area for a dangerous adversary that you know is there should be comparatively very easy.

But note that this does not detract from the rogue skill at all. He might be good enough to pull it off despite the additional difficulty, no worries if that happens and all more power to him.

 

[jayoungr]

This is assuming that the attacker is indeed unseen. If he is seen coming out from behind the pillar, he is not unseen, therefore no advantage.

If he made the Stealth check, he is an unseen attacker. Per RAW. Page 192. You can't say you're running 100% RAW if you don't allow that.

Because we are talking about a rogue going to hide behind the same single pillar every single time. The rogue cannot hide while in plain sight, but if there is only one place to hide and he disappears, where do you think he went ?

So you set the difficulty to hide there at a very high level, whatever you think represents how hard it would actually be. But if the rogue successfully beats that DC, would you then decide that he still doesn't get any benefits from that?

The rogue might be skilled, but the adversaries are not mandatorily idiots either, or unskilled at fighting stealthy opponents.

Does success on the roll grant a benefit to the rogue, or do you just overrule it?

But first remember that a check does not necessarily mean a roll.

What would be an example of a check without a roll? I use the terms interchangeably, but I will be sure to say "roll" in the future to avoid ambiguity.

If there is only one place to hide, even if the target cannot see or hear the rogue, he knows that the rogue is there and where he is...

So ... you let the rogue roll but he always auto-fails because you've mentally decided that it's impossible, and you don't tell the player this? Because that's what I'm getting from your answers.

 

[Xetheral]

Then what is the purpose of a stealth check? Or to put it another way, if the rogue succeeds on a stealth check at whatever difficulty level you set, do you then turn around and say that the target knows the rogue is there anyway?

Personally I separate what the target can detect from what the target knows (or think they know). Hiding at my table simply prevents the target from detecting the hider's current location, but doesn't make the target forget whatever they know about the Rogue's location.

So, in the example with a single pillar, a successful hide check at my table removes the ability of the target to hear the rogue's location and gives the rogue all the benefits of being an unseen attacker if they lean out to shoot. But the targets are still going to correctly assume the Rogue is behind the pillar, so they still "know" where the Rogue is despite not having sensory information to confirm the accuracy of that knowledge.

 

[billd91]

When you stop putting words in my mouth, maybe we'll be able to have a constructive conversation. But at this stage, I'm afraid that there is not much that can be said.

You really might want to look back at some of your previous posts then because it sure looks like you were saying Ov was playing Dolts and Dummies while you prefer cleverness around the table, and then you said that he was interested in a game that was purely mechanistic. Ovinomancer may be prickly, but you're walking right into these every time you ascribe some assumption to his games. That's not putting words in your mouth - you wrote them. You may not have meant what some of us are reading but we are reading those words.

 

[jayoungr]

Personally I separate what the target can detect from what the target knows (or think they know). Hiding at my table simply prevents the target from detecting the hider's current location, but doesn't make the target forget whatever they know about the Rogue's location.

So, for example, you might have the enemy toss an AoE spell at that location, even if they don't perceive the rogue hiding there? I think that's fine, and I might do the same myself. (I might quietly roll a wisdom check behind the screen for some enemies before doing that, but if it was, say, Strahd von Zarovich, no problem.)

 

[Xetheral]

So, for example, you might have the enemy toss an AoE spell at that location, even if they don't perceive the rogue hiding there? I think that's fine, and I might do the same myself. (I might quietly roll a wisdom check behind the screen for some enemies before doing that, but if it was, say, Strahd von Zarovich, no problem.)

Correct. Or the target might move so that anyone shooting from around that pillar wouldn't have line of sight, or move to try to attack the Rogue in melee, or any other countermeasure.

Of course, in a more complicated scenario where the target's knowledge of the Rogue's location is not accurate, such countermeasures could easily be wasted.

 

[Lyxen]

If he made the Stealth check, he is an unseen attacker. Per RAW. Page 192. You can't say you're running 100% RAW if you don't allow that.

No. He is only unsen "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding". If you pop out of your "concealment" right in front of an enemy, you are discovered, and you are certainly not unseen. This is 100% RAW here.

So you set the difficulty to hide there at a very high level, whatever you think represents how hard it would actually be. But if the rogue successfully beats that DC, would you then decide that he still doesn't get any benefits from that?

The DC is fixed by the passive perception of the creatures around, even if they are not searching. But nothing prevents that from being modified, or even be automatically successful.

But assuming that the rogue beats that DC, he would be hidden.

However, see above, unless he can launch his attack from "concealment" (which hiding in a bush usually allows but hiding behind a pillar does not), he might still lose that before his attack if the adversaries are specifically watching his place of concealment.

There are infinite scenarios, no hard and fast rules (which is proper, as, as the devs pointed out, "no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable").

Does success on the roll grant a benefit to the rogue, or do you just overrule it?

It depends what the rogue does. If he pops out immediately, he might be intently watched and lose it. If he waits, or does something unpredictable, he might keep it. It's all in the declarations of the players/DM.

What would be an example of a check without a roll? I use the terms interchangeably, but I will be sure to say "roll" in the future to avoid ambiguity.

Automatic success / automatic failure for example. Either because the task is trivial or impossible, or because the player does not really understand something or know something.

For example, the player tries to convince someone of acting nicely towards someone, not knowing that it is his mortal enemy. Or he tries the same thing, but does not know that the two have made a secret pact and that he would always agree.

Note that, in these cases, I might ask for a roll so as to prevent metagaming, but I might also ask for free insight checks (or, better yet, use passive insight) so that the player might notice that something is amiss, it was too easy or there was a very strong reason for failure.

So ... you let the rogue roll but he always auto-fails because you've mentally decided that it's impossible, and you don't tell the player this? Because that's what I'm getting from your answers.

No, he does not necessarily autofail (he might, by the way, because there is another adversary looking at the back of the pillar that the rogue does not know about, in which case he might believe that he has succeeded), but the DC is harder.

He might actually succeed despite the higher DC, meaning that the enemy does not hear him or detect him anymore. But that does not mean that he forgets about it either.

But if the adversary is watching the pillar like a hawk (which the rogue does not know because he is on the other side of the pillar anyway) and tries something funny, although he starts unseen, he will immediately lose that status when showing himself.

 

[Lyxen]

You really might want to look back at some of your previous posts then because it sure looks like you were saying Ov was playing Dolts and Dummies while you prefer cleverness around the table, and then you said that he was interested in a game that was purely mechanistic. Ovinomancer may be prickly, but you're walking right into these every time you ascribe some assumption to his games. That's not putting words in your mouth - you wrote them. You may not have meant what some of us are reading but we are reading those words.

My bad, then and my apologies, but PCs/NPCs (not the players, once again) with goldfish memories who can't remember that they were just shot for 36 damage from hiding and allow this to occur round after round, from the same exact place, and do nothing about it are dolts/dummies. It says nothing about the mental capacity of the players, but it does say something about the way those PCs/NPCs are played in terms of role.

And just the fact that some people can read that it's possible from the rules for a rogue to do it, and insist that it's not only possible, but obviously the intent of the game because it's possible, and let their game be dictated entirely by rules instead of doing what exactly the same rules (admittedly in another section) tell them about also shows something about the tone of the game.

It's not worse or better as long as everyone is having fun, but again people should assume their choices and not feel prickly about them if they put them on display.

 

[jayoungr]

No. He is only unsen "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding". If you pop out of your "concealment" right in front of an enemy, you are discovered, and you are certainly not unseen. This is 100% RAW here.

EVEN if I allow that, which I don't, it still contradicts what you said in post #338, where you claimed that RAW never says that the rogue should gain the benefits of being an unseen attacker.

The DC is fixed by the passive perception of the creatures around, even if they are not searching. But nothing prevents that from being modified, or even be automatically successful.

Have I ever claimed that anything prevents DCs from being modified?

But assuming that the rogue beats that DC, he would be hidden.

However, see above, unless he can launch his attack from "concealment" (which hiding in a bush usually allows but hiding behind a pillar does not), he might still lose that before his attack if the adversaries are specifically watching his place of concealment.

This is exactly what would happen if the rogue ducked behind the pillar without making a stealth check to hide. The rogue would be considerably better off using his bonus action for something else and not even bothering with the stealth check.

He might actually succeed despite the higher DC, meaning that the enemy does not hear him or detect him anymore. But that does not mean that he forgets about it either.

But if the adversary is watching the pillar like a hawk (which the rogue does not know because he is on the other side of the pillar anyway) and tries something funny, although he starts unseen, he will immediately lose that status when showing himself.

So, again, the stealth check is basically valueless. Unless you're using it to hide behind a bush, I guess. Unless the enemy is watching the bush.

 

[Lyxen]

EVEN if I allow that, which I don't, it still contradicts what you said in post #338, where you claimed that RAW never says that the rogue should gain the benefits of being an unseen attacker.

OK, where does the RAW say that a rogue should get the benefit of being an unseen attacker ?

Remember that there are very often multiple rules that apply, so the hide action does not say that whoever takes it will get the benefit forever. And that section refers to this, and the sentence starts with "IF you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack..."

So even if you take the hide action, and gain some benefits, because that specific benefit starts with an "IF", if it's not realised, then you do not get the benefit.

Have I ever claimed that anything prevents DCs from being modified?

No, but you said "So you set the difficulty to hide" which you actually do not, it's a contest so it's sort of set for you by the rules. No worry there, it was just to express the fact that you do not arbitrarily set a DC in this specific case.

This is exactly what would happen if the rogue ducked behind the pillar without making a stealth check to hide. The rogue would be considerably better off using his bonus action for something else and not even bothering with the stealth check.

Exactly, what's the point of trying to be silent when the adversary knows exactly where you are and can watch that place ? Again, no one is forbidding it, but it seems pointless and the world should reflect it. Fortunately, the rules allow this 100% RAW.

So, again, the stealth check is basically valueless. Unless you're using it to hide behind a bush, I guess. Unless the enemy is watching the bush.

That's what I like about the stealth rules, they are fairly simple but cover lots of cases. The difference with the bush is that you do not need to pop out to fire that crossbow, you can do it from inside the bush, because not only can you see out of the bush to ascertain exactly where the target is, but your projectile can easily ignore leaves whereas it cannot ignore a stone pillar.

So watching the bush is not going to allow the watcher any way to see you more clearly (and therefore make you lose your "hidden" status) before you shoot, and therefore the "IF" above resolves in favour of the rogue. Clear ?