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

[Plaguescarred]

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.

A target benefit from cover, not the attacker. So a target has three-quarters cover when covered by an obstacle such as an arrow slit, when someone attack it. It can attack through it without penalty as it's designed for this. A creature is not a still arrow slit opening, it's a moving creature, and any attack or effect that originates on the opposite side of the cover grant cover to the target. A halfling can hide when obscured by a larger creature meaning it stays on the opposite side of it or else the target will clearly see the halfling.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Creatures provide half cover, wether they're tiny or Gargantua.

“A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.”

so… not exactly… a tiny creature will not grant half cover to a medium sized PC b/c a tiny creature would not block at least half of the PC’s body.

 

[Redwizard007]

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 totally understand your reasoning, and concede that it is 100% logical, but I disagree for one major reason. D&D isn't a simulation of the real world. If I can wrap my head around giant flying reptiles that breathe pure cold, giants so large their legs should shatter, hippies turning into dire squirrels, nerds casting spells, and enraged half-wits shrugging off blows that should maim them instantly, what is wrong with shady pickpockets being unnaturally good at shooting you when you are looking away for a split second?

In your opinion, would it be reasonable to believe that rogues have an uncanny ability to time their strikes for maximum effect that is unique to their class? They seem to be capable of doing so when a target is engaged with another foe or even distracted by a familiar, or at least I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary. Making the leap to include peeking out and attacking from even poor concealment seems perfectly natural to me. It doesn't really matter that you know where the shot is coming from if you don't know when it is coming.

Honestly, in OP's example, I could see granting the sneak attack but not making the attack at advantage. It's not RAW, but I think it's a reasonable compromise at any table having this debate. For most of us, we seem to have a consensus at our tables one way or another. Both work as RAW with different interpretations of how to apply the rules, and its another example of where the designers failed to be clear enough to prevent dozens of pages of arguments that have in several instances passed beyond civil discourse.

 

[Plaguescarred]

“A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.”

so… not exactly… a tiny creature will not grant half cover to a medium sized PC b/c a tiny creature would not block at least half of the PC’s body.

Cover provided by creature has no size implication mentioned. Confirmed also by the Devs;

 

[Ovinomancer]

“A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.”

so… not exactly… a tiny creature will not grant half cover to a medium sized PC b/c a tiny creature would not block at least half of the PC’s body.

I think the argument there was based on if a creature is providing cover at all, size doesn't matter. Unspoken assumptions will get you every time.

EDIT: although, I could be wrong....

 

[Plaguescarred]

Also from Sage Advice:

Target at range caught in melee combat—does that target get some kind of cover or do I get disadvantage? Your target has half-cover if another creature is between you and the target (PH, 196).

 

[Horwath]

Also from Sage Advice:

Target at range caught in melee combat—does that target get some kind of cover or do I get disadvantage? Your target has half-cover if another creature is between you and the target (PH, 196).

I'm going to use logic and say that Small creature does not provide any cover to Huge creature, maybe even note to Large creature or generous +1 AC

 

[Plaguescarred]

I believe the reason creatures provide half cover is because they are not static hard object, but fluid cover. And rather than have more complex cover based on size, they opted for simplicity, creature = half-cover regardless of size. Afterall, a tiny or guargantua creature could motion during attack and either let pass the attack more or less easily somehow.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Cover provided by creature has no size implication mentioned. Confirmed also by the Devs;

But a tiny creature in no way “blocks at least half” of a medium PC’s body as the rule insists is a condition of cover.
It would be like saying any low wall provides half cover to a standing medium PC even if said low wall is only 18 inches high.
I’ll choose to disagree with JC’s tweet here.

EDIT to add: I’ll concede if a pixie is fluttering around in front of said PC one could accept that is half cover. But a rat scrabbling at the PC’s feet? Not so much.

 

[Plaguescarred]

dublicate