D&D 5E Halfling rogue sniping from the the second rank

Sir Brennen · Aug 5, 2014

Mistwell said:
I am trying to particularize this to the halfling ability. I think a broader discussion of hide is asking too much.

Very specific: Does Halfling's Natural Stealth ability allow hiding a 2nd time behind the same creature after an attack from same target?

Bit more broad: Does Halfling's Natural Stealth ability grant cover, obscurement, both, neither and what kind of each/either

Sir Brennen · Aug 5, 2014

Bumamgar said:
You are being very literal with the definition of 'pop out'. It is quite possible to fire an arrow from behind a tree without the defender seeing anything, even when stating at the tree. Requires the attacker to maintain cover while firing, but certainly posdible

That's the question, then. You added a condition of maintaining cover while firing, that is, before Advantage is determined. How do you make the call on the success/failure of that condition? Another Stealth roll when you peek around a branch but before you fire? That's house rule territory. Also, you have to take into consideration the type of weapon. Does your rule apply for a sling? A spear?

Also, you're being a bit too literal sticking with the tree example. Whatever the ruling is, it should apply to any (or at least, most) situations where the character is hiding behind something with total cover (and obscurement as noted by others, which will be the case 99% of the time.) So, does your idea of remaining 100% unseen apply in all cases when firing a ranged weapon of any type from total cover of any type?

Gimul · Aug 5, 2014

Ilbranteloth said:
OK, specifically regarding the Naturally Stealthy ability:

Once the halfling has attacked (thus no longer Hiding) using the Naturally Stealthy ability, can he attempt to hide again by simply moving behind an ally again?

Randy

Not all on one turn (assuming one action and one bonus action).
If starting the turn hidden; he should be able to attack, then use his cunning action to hide again. But, not use a cunning action to hide, an action to attack and then hide again as it would require an additional action.

He could hide, attack then move out of line of sight... but he would not be "hidden" (merely unseen). If he remained out of sight until his next turn he could hide , then attack.

Note, in the case of being out of sight, but not hidden, peeking would not grant you advantage. (Hiding, successfully, is what allows you to be unseen with less that total obscurement)

Bumamgar · Aug 5, 2014

I was intentionally pointing out that even in the most contrived example (single tree in middle of open plane) there are plenty of considerations that could provide the attacker with advantage. I would rule that the 'successful hide check' (just the one) is what would determine if the attacker was able to attack from behind the tree / wall / ally with advantage. All this bit about hiding and 'then' attacking as a separate thing which gives the defender a way to negate advantage seems contrived to me. If the attacker is hidden and can attack without moving from where they are hidden (literally using 'movement', not just the motion of drawing the bow or swinging the sword) then they attack with advantage. Pretty cut and dry to me.

Joe Liker · Aug 5, 2014

Ranes said:
Isn't the problem here that the fact there there is a debate at all is indicative of the rule being a tad silly in the first place? I'm an average height human male but someone three feet tall (or thereabouts) standing behind me would not be hidden from view from anyone standing five or even ten feet away from me unless neither I nor the person behind me was moving at all and, further, that I and the person behind me were standing with our legs together, at a minimum. Sure, give the short person skulking behind me a cover bonus but a hiding bonus? Someone upthread mentioned peekaboo and I think that sums up how ill-considered this idea is.

No, it's not the end of the world. I do think the OP seems to be interpreting the rule correctly and I have no axe to grind with 5e. I'm liking it a lot. But this rule in particular? Nothing said so far seems to justify it to me.

Edit: all right, maybe not human but medium, in D&D terms.

That's why this is a special racial ability afforded only to some halflings, not a thing that just any short person can do. If you're not one of those halflings and don't understand how it's done, it's basically magic.

Ilbranteloth · Aug 5, 2014

Sir Brennen said:
That's the question, then. You added a condition of maintaining cover while firing, that is, before Advantage is determined. How do you make the call on the success/failure of that condition? Another Stealth roll when you peek around a branch but before you fire? That's house rule territory. Also, you have to take into consideration the type of weapon. Does your rule apply for a sling? A spear?

I'd like to keep the rolls to a minimum. The way I look at it, if you are successfully Hidden, then you can 'pop out' of cover and make your attack with advantage. Once that attack has been made, you are no longer Hidden.

The question is that now that you are no longer Hidden, and your position is known, can you Hide again? The reason I feel this is important is based on the rule that combatants know where all other combatants are who are not Hidden. So when the 'hidden from view' character pops out to attack again, the defender would see them (since they know where they are), and the character would not gain advantage on attack.

I don't see this as a contrived way to negate the advantage. My assumption is that if you are Hidden, then your opponent doesn't know where you are. Therefore they don't see the attack coming and thus you have advantage.

But if they know where you are (either because they won the opposed Stealth/Perception check, or they just watched you go behind the tree), you are simply hidden from view, and you must reveal yourself to make your attack, then you don't have advantage.

Randy

Thaumaturge · Aug 5, 2014

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s question and Mearls' reply:

Don't mean to steal your thunder, Mistwell. Just helping people get their answers.

Thaumaturge.

Ilbranteloth · Aug 5, 2014

Exactly.

Randy

fjw70 · Aug 5, 2014

Branduil said:
If you are totally obscured or invisible you don't even need to hide to get advantage on your attack.

Agreed.

The rules also explicitly state that if you attack while hidden, the attack gives away your position,

Agreed.

and if you approach a creature from hiding, that usually gives away your position.

Correct.

The inference being that you can immediately attack from a hidden position and gain advantage,

You can always attack from a hidden position with advantage if are allowed to make that attack normally. However, you cannot make attacks from behind total cover and if you give up your total cover to attack then you are no longer hidden (assuming there is nothing else besides the cover that keeps you unseen).

but if you move out of hiding and approach, it will only work in specific circumstances.

Moving out is all you need to break hiding. The approach statement was just an example and not a requirement to break hiding.

Furthermore, if your interpretation is correct, that means the halfling's Naturally Stealthy ability to hide behind another creature is mechanically meaningless, and WotC just wrote it in for funsies.

How is it meaningless? My interpretation says the halfling can attack from a hidden position since they are using obscurement to hide and not total cover.

Sir Brennen · Aug 5, 2014

Bumamgar said:
I was intentionally pointing out that even in the most contrived example (single tree in middle of open plane) there are plenty of considerations that could provide the attacker with advantage. I would rule that the 'successful hide check' (just the one) is what would determine if the attacker was able to attack from behind the tree / wall / ally with advantage. All this bit about hiding and 'then' attacking as a separate thing which gives the defender a way to negate advantage seems contrived to me. If the attacker is hidden and can attack without moving from where they are hidden (literally using 'movement', not just the motion of drawing the bow or swinging the sword) then they attack with advantage. Pretty cut and dry to me.

But it IS hiding then attacking. Two completely separate actions, which could take place an hour apart, even. Not contrived at all.

To hide, you have to not be seen, which means either total cover or obscurement, or magic (invisibility) or some special ability (Naturally Stealthy). In the case of total cover, you can't be seen by your target and you can't see your target. So the "movement" is about getting to where you can see your target AND expose your two-handed bow to be able to attack. Either of those requires you to break total cover. If you're not totally concealed, you can be seen (not ARE, just CAN BE). But once you start attacking, your location (if not you) is revealed. If the target starts watching the spot, you will be seen on your next attack. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

The thing is, I agree with your logic when it comes to concealment. If it's an wood elf archer with Mask of the Wild hiding up in the branches of the tree behind all the leaves (light natural concealment), then he can attack without necessarily exposing himself; he doesn't have to "pop-out" from the leaves. Once he attacks, his location is revealed and he'll have to try and hide again. Each round his Hide attempt beats the target's Perception, he can attack with Advantage each time, until the wizard fireballs the leaves off the tree

D&D 5E Halfling rogue sniping from the the second rank

Sir Brennen

Legend

Sir Brennen

Legend

Gimul

Explorer

Bumamgar

First Post

Joe Liker

First Post

Ilbranteloth

Explorer

Thaumaturge

Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)

Ilbranteloth

Explorer

fjw70

Adventurer

Sir Brennen

Legend

Similar Threads