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

[Lyxen]

actually no.

shooter is in cover, but target is not. Shooter only needs to clear weapon and one eye out of cover.

What then with castle arrow slits? They give +5 cover. and they do not impede aiming at the target if it's in the open. It will however reduce the area that you can shoot into. But those you see, you see clearly. Unless they have their own cover to hide behind.

Bravo, you just have proven that, actually, cover does not exist, since all you need is to shoot at the right place and the right time. So simple. I'd really like to see you shoot like that...

 

[Horwath]

Bravo, you just have proven that, actually, cover does not exist, since all you need is to shoot at the right place and the right time. So simple. I'd really like to see you shoot like that...

What?
Shooter still has more then half of his body behind cover. Shooter is a SMALLER target because of that. Smaller target is harder to hit.
Unless you use some called shots variant, but that carries it's own penalty for aiming at smaller part of body instead of "hit anything".

 

[Lyxen]

In Hide and Seek, the goal is to make the other player unaware of one's location. Hiding in the same place repeatedly makes it trivial for the other player to be aware of one's location, no matter how quiet you are.

Conversely, in the example with a single pillar, the goal at my table isn't to make the enemy unaware of one's location, it's to capitalize on one's ability to remain unseen and unheard long enough to make a target in the open less able to predict the timing of the inevitable attack. Successfully doing so doesn't require fooling the target or taking advantage of them being dumb, it just requires being quiet enough that that the target can't use hearing to know when the attack is coming.

You know what, I don't disagree with this, but my perspective is different. There are two parts of being hidden that benefit an unseen attacker:

• The target does not know from where the attack is going to come
• The target does not see the attacker prepare and aim

These are two different components. For me, the maximum efficiency is attained when both are present, which is why, if the rogue is hidden at an unknown location, he will always have advantage.

But if it's at a known location, he benefits from only one of these parts, and it makes it harder to be 100% efficient. He can still be, but it's still harder, hence the disadvantage on stealth.

From the target's perspective, at my table they still know that the Rogue is behind the pillar even after the successful hide check, and can act appropriately to defend themselves by taking the Dodge action, moving to cover, or moving to engage the Rogue in melee. The Rogue only gets repeated advantage on their attacks if the target chooses not to take (or is prevented from taking) any of these countermeasures.

And these are fine countermeasure, assuming that you can take them. But I like my game to be even more varied, and allow for additional countermeasures, some that take less effort for less benefit. If the player makes some effort in his roleplay and description, he might not negate the advantage, but just make it more difficult for the rogue to achieve it, that's all.

You appear to be interpreting the act of attacking from hiding as necessarily fooling the target in the some way in order to get advantage. That's cool, and definitely works within the very broad rules for hiding in 5e. But it's not the only way to envision what's happening in the fiction.

The thing is that, in fiction, no-one hides at the same place twice in a row. The spectator would think "that's weird, why do they fall for this, are they idiots ?" And, as I've said, with a stupid protagonist, it can certainly be comedy.

Those of use who approach it differently don't see fooling the target or making them unaware of the Rogue's location as a part of the fiction, so when we give the Rogue advantage we're not implying that the target was fooled or too dumb to play Hide and Seek. Accordingly, we're also not placing any less emphasis on the importance of the fiction than you are--we're simply using different fiction.

One that not flow with the usual fiction of the genre or with logic as a I see it, see above.

 

[Lyxen]

What?
Shooter still has more then half of his body behind cover. Shooter is a SMALLER target because of that. Smaller target is harder to hit.
Unless you use some called shots variant, but that carries it's own penalty for aiming at smaller part of body instead of "hit anything".

If the halfling is behind a creature to get be able to hide from his target, there is a creature, moving and fighting between the halfling and his target. That is the basic example of having cover.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No I mean he calculated it correctly. Not that it is the "correct baseline to use."

Oh. Sorry, since you pointed to it as evidence that AT far outstrips other classes, I thought you were standing by the general results, not defending the correctness of the arithmetic.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Can you try to hide from a creature grappling you?

If the grappler can't clearly see you, i mean, it certainly knows where you are having you grappled, but the Stealth rules don't exclude it specifically. I use a similar approach to re-hiding in same location.

 

[Horwath]

If the halfling is behind a creature to get be able to hide from his target, there is a creature, moving and fighting between the halfling and his target. That is the basic example of having cover.

yes, but cover does not usually works both ways.

 

[Oofta]

So just a point. While swinging a sword may take slightly longer, it takes about six hundredths of a second to throw a punch. Yet people respond to and block those punches. In D&D you can react to and block a dozen or more punches from different opponents as long as you can see them all.

I just don't see why people would have enough time to react to those attacks, but not the attacks of someone that leans out from cover, aims, times it so they aren't hitting their ally when they know where the attack is likely to come from. Totally unexpected? Okay, it kind of makes sense. The second or third time? You have as much warning as the fact that ogre #3 that's directly behind you is going to throw a punch while ogre #2 to your side and ogre #1 in your face is doing the same.

I don't have a problem with people running this multiple ways, but using "they don't have enough time to react to see the attack coming" as a reason why it must be that way is what doesn't make sense to me. If you're doing it because it suits your style and vision of the game - fantastic! That's all you need to say. Just like for me it doesn't.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you try to hide from a creature grappling you?

If the grappler can't clearly see you, i mean, it certainly knows where you are having you grappled, but the Stealth rules don't exclude it specifically. I use a similar approach to re-hiding in same location.

This definitely runs into the GM determining if conditions are good for you to hide. Personally, I'd rule no. However, you are correct, there is nothing specifically outlawing it in the rules.

 

[jayoungr]

No one - absolutely no one - is suggesting that you can duck behind the pillar, wait a few seconds, and backstab someone as they wonder where you could possibly be.

Actually, I've been saying that this could happen. But I'm also not presuming a single pillar in an empty white room and no other party members to keep the enemy distracted. It was more in the context of using the same hiding place multiple times.