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

[Mistwell]

The only way I see that works is the target AC starts at 8. That's the only way I can get the EB warlock close to the start of that graph, and I have to include Hex to do it. Like I said, there's some assumption there. Perhaps link your source? Just saying Treantmonk doesn't really do much for me.

You can check his math here I think? I think he use a 60% chance to hit. He does also add crit damage. Has calcs for advantage and disadvantage (and impact on crits from each), using feats, etc..

 

[Charlaquin]

He's using the least optimized version of a rogue. Why would he use a thief for that comparison?

He’s also using the least optimized version of a fighter. I suspect he’s trying to find the floor rather than the maximum potential, which I think is a solid move since most people don’t play very optimized characters.

 

[Mistwell]

He’s also using the least optimized version of a fighter. I suspect he’s trying to find the floor rather than the maximum potential, which I think is a solid move since most people don’t play very optimized characters.

Ah well sure, it's easier to screw up a Rogue than a Fighter I think. "I hit it with my sword as many times as I am allowed to" is harder to mess up than "My familiar flies in and provides the help action to attack, I move in, cast Booming Blade, attack with my rapier at advantage, deal initial Booming Blade damage plus Rapier damage plus Sneak Attack, use my Cunning Action to disengage and move back. When the foe on his turn tries to close with someone, they then take the secondary Booming Blade damage."

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not following this. If your opponents have absolutely no idea where you are, then shouldn't that mean that all hiding places are equally viable?

If you hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally, your opponents shouldn’t have absolutely no idea where you are. I agree with @Lyxen that would be absurd. The difference is, Lyxen concludes it must therefore be impossible to hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally (more than once? Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your position), whereas I conclude that your opponents must therefore have some idea where you are. But, you still get the benefits of hiding - if you attack whilst hidden behind the pillar or your ally, you’ll get advantage, since your opponent can’t see you and predict exactly when you’ll attack or from which side of the pillar/your ally or at what height. If they try to attack you from where they are, they’ll have disadvantage since they can’t see yiu (in addition to any cover bonus the pillar or your ally might grant you). Of course, that would be kind of a stupid thing to do, since they could easily just walk around the pillar or your ally to a place from which they can see you clearly and then attack.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah well sure, it's easier to screw up a Rogue than a Fighter I think. "I hit it with my sword as many times as I am allowed to" is harder to mess up than "My familiar flies in and provides the help action to attack, I move in, cast Booming Blade, attack with my rapier at advantage, deal initial Booming Blade damage plus Rapier damage plus Sneak Attack, use my Cunning Action to disengage and move back. When the foe on his turn tries to close with someone, they then take the secondary Booming Blade damage."

You’re including advantage from the familiar’s help action in that calculation… My whole assertion is that rogues fall behind if they don’t have a reliable way to gain advantage.

 

[Nefermandias]

If you hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally, your opponents shouldn’t have absolutely no idea where you are. I agree with @Lyxen that would be absurd. The difference is, Lyxen concludes it must therefore be impossible to hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally (more than once? Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your position), whereas I conclude that your opponents must therefore have some idea where you are. But, you still get the benefits of hiding - if you attack whilst hidden behind the pillar or your ally, you’ll get advantage, since your opponent can’t see you and predict exactly when you’ll attack or from which side of the pillar/your ally or at what height. If they try to attack you from where they are, they’ll have disadvantage since they can’t see yiu (in addition to any cover bonus the pillar or your ally might grant you). Of course, that would be kind of a stupid thing to do, since they could easily just walk around the pillar or your ally to a place from which they can see you clearly and then attack.

Sure. That's why a rogue should be hiding and then shooting in the same turn. That's the easiest way to deny the opponent the chance to just go around the pillar and reestablishing line of sight.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. That's why a rogue should be hiding and then shooting in the same turn. That's the easiest way to deny the opponent the chance to just go around the pillar and reestablishing line of sight.

Agreed. And it’s also, as far as I can tell, the only possible use for Naturally Stealthy, which is why I’m convinced it is supposed to be possible to do so.

 

[Nefermandias]

Agreed. And it’s also, as far as I can tell, the only possible use for Naturally Stealthy, which is why I’m convinced it is supposed to be possible to do so.

Yes, that's the most obvious application for Naturally Stealthy. That's why I was really shocked with OP's DM ruling on that situation. Even more shocked with so many people here defending that position.

 

[Lyxen]

If you hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally, your opponents shouldn’t have absolutely no idea where you are. I agree with @Lyxen that would be absurd. The difference is, Lyxen concludes it must therefore be impossible to hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally (more than once? Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your position)

I'm not saying impossible, and I'm not putting any limit on the number of attempts, the only thing I'm saying is that it should be harder, round after round, to pull off the same trick, especially if it's a silly thing like hiding in exactly the same place all the time.

That way, I'm not closing off any option, but the players should also expect that more experienced adversaries will be even harder to fool with easy tricks. And that should also encourage the players to be even more inventive and creative.

 

[Mistwell]

You’re including advantage from the familiar’s help action in that calculation… My whole assertion is that rogues fall behind if they don’t have a reliable way to gain advantage.

Well then get a way! Yes, I agree, they should be getting a reliable way to get advantage. You don't need it every round, but you should be finding a way to get it most rounds.