D&D 5E Ranged attacks from behind a corner/an object

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
Hey there,

I know there have been some discussions about that topic, but I couldn't find a clear answer.

The rules intend that ranged attacks while hidden seem to be possible. Otherwise there wouldn't be feats like Skulker concerning this. Furthermore you wouldn't get Advantage while being hidden. Of course, you could argument that the "hidding" condition in this situations are only possible whily "lightly obscured" (e.g. by dim light), because Skulker also makes that possible.

However, here are my straight questions:

1.) Is it possible to hide behind an object/corner and make a ranged attack while being hidden?
2.) Do I have to step out for that or can I shoot while staying behind that object (e.g. by sticking to a wall/object and just peep around the edge of it).


Notice: If the answer concerning the 2nd question is "step out", attacks while hidden would no longer be possible with a Ready Action, because this would require movement.

Would be glad about answers!

Thanks in advance!
Peter

So within the rules, combined with Sage Advice and errata, you won't find an answer that says, "this is how it always works." And I think that's intentional. In part because I think it also has a lot to do with the group and playstyle.

So let me ask a few questions to start:

Have you seen the video where you're supposed to count the number of times a group of people pass basketballs? It shows how oblivious we can often be when we're focused on something. Like, for example somebody else trying to run us through with a sword. In the midst of combat people keep their eye out for danger, but if they are otherwise occupied, there are moments where their focus is taken.

Even if you know (and can even see) your enemy, you don't always know exactly when they will pop out to attack you. Much like whack-a-mole. Except the moles are trying to kill you. While somebody standing next to you is also trying to kill you.

Do you think it's possible that somebody could sneak behind two guards looking the other way? Without any cover or concealment other than the guards are facing the other way? It's a common enough trope.

So how about your 7-year-old daughter who you watch walk around the corner, not realizing that she stops and then jumps out to scare you? Oh, and then she does it again....

What about a fighter hiding around a corner, who jumps out to attack?

--

To me, these are all covered by Stealth checks in the game. And the possibility of success is there. In some cases with cover, others with concealment, and others in the open. The thing they have in common is that the perpetrator is unseen by the target (although in the case of whack-a-mole, that's not even true.

To rephrase your questions specifically, can you hide behind something and make an attack? In real life? If you had a nerf bow, could you? Would you have to step out, or could you lean out, stand up, or use some other variation to make the attack without stepping out?

For all of these questions, I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. So then the question is, how do we simulate these scenarios in the game?

The mechanics are already there. Stealth check against a (often passive) Perception check. If it's something that the target should see coming, you can give them advantage on their passive perception (+5). The first time, when you are truly hidden (your location is unknown), then I don't think there is any question that it's just a Stealth check. It really becomes a problem when people attempt to do it repeatedly.

One option, if the target knows you are there is they Ready an action to attack you when you pop out. Not only will it interrupt your attack and occur first, but in many cases I'd give them advantage on their attack because they were unseen to you until you popped out (unless you have a crack to look through, or something like that).

More importantly, any intelligent creatures will attempt to eliminate any advantage you or your party has. So a rogue that pops out twice and hides against is likely to be targeted by as many opponents as possible. At least in my game.

For your final question? Can you ready an action to pop out? In most cases I'd say no. It really depends on the circumstance, but a Readied action needs a trigger of some sort. So it probably can't be a visual trigger. If there's an appropriate trigger, then sure.

But circumstances are really the main question here. Are the circumstances such that as a DM you think they warrant a 25% advantage on their attack? For example, if they are popping up from behind cover, but their target has moved significantly from their last position; the advantage has probably been lost. Of course, if you have a crack or peephole to peek through, then I think you would. Not only would they not know exactly when you'll pop out, but they might believe they have successful foiled your attack.

I think it's important to be consistent (although that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the same answer every time), and it's also important to utilize such tactics against them. People will naturally use the tactics that are most advantageous where possible. Ranged weapons from behind cover is a very strong position, even if it doesn't grant advantage on the attack roll.

I've never actually had a problem with this sort of thing, simply because the opportunity to practice it is usually quite fleeting on my battlefield. It's a good way to draw targeted attacks. And that's been true from both sides (PC and monster).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I would say that at that moment the rogue can be clearly seen and are no longer necessarily hidden. In some cases the enemy still won't notice them in my game, but there is no magic "hidden" condition that persists once there is line of sight.

All of this is left up to the DM of course, the rules are purposefully vague to allow people to run the kind of game they want.

To me this falls under the "if a target is distracted, the PC might still retain the Hidden status". A PC never has to remain behind Obscuring cover at all times. The rules allow (for example) the Hidden character to sneak up silently behind a guard, so long as the guard doesn't turn around. Whether the guard turns around or not (and whether the guard is allowed to notice the PC sneaking up) is a DM decision.

So by the same token in my interpretation of the rules and what I think they were going for... a PC who leans out from behind a wall to attack a target can still retain his Hidden status so long as the target is distracted, and the DM allows/agrees with it. And in my personal games... I consider combat to be distracting.

But as has been mentioned many times before, everyone is going to interpret the generic rules explanation in the way that makes the most sense for them and their table... which is entirely I believe why they wrote the rules that way in the first place. So that every DM *can* interpret the rules the way they want to get they effect they want.
 

lkwpeter

Explorer
This is started to go down some very worn paths. There's been plenty of sage advice and other discussions about this already.
You are right. I found something that pretty much strengthens @Hriston's Position:

You are neither breaking cover nor attacking through the object that grants cover. The line of sight/attack has no thickness. I would say you're attacking from hiding.

Your position is revealed when the attack hits or misses, which allows you to remain hidden as you make the attack itself.

Jeremy says that

a) You can attack while hidden behind an object/wall.
b) The hidden condition is broken AFTER the attack (not the moment you pop out).
c) You can re-hide with Disadvantage.
d) You don't need to "move out". You can poke out and fire from behind a cover.

Concerning d) I personally will take Hriston's explanation in Post #27, because if Jeremy confirms that "poking your head out while hidden" is possible, I think the rules of DMG 251 come into play as usually. And that's just fine.
 
Last edited:

You are right. I found something that pretty much strengthens @Hriston's Position:


a) You can attack while hidden behind an object/wall.
b) The hidden condition is broken AFTER the attack (not the moment you pop out).
c) You can re-hide with Disadvantage.
d) You don't need to "move out". You can poke out and fire from behind a cover.

Concerning d) I personally will take Hriston's explanation in Post #27, because if Jeremy confirms that "poking your head out while hidden" is possible, I think the rules of DMG 251 come into play as usually. And that's just fine.
That is rather different from Hriston's position as I understand it.

Jeremy is saying that it is possible to poke your head out, or lean out of cover in order to attack, and that you may remain hidden to do so. (At least until you make the attack).
(As compared with having to actually move into the 5ft square outside the cover, which seems to be what he is answering.)

Hriston has said that the line of sight/attack has no thickness. i.e that you don't need to actually poke any part of your body out from behind cover in order to see or attack something on he other side of it.

For example, in response to someone leaning out from around a corner, attacking, and then ducking back, I would allow you to ready an action to attack them if they pop out again. If they pop out from the same place, you could then attack them before they make their attack, (although they would have 3/4 cover since they are just leaning out). This is consistent with Jeremy's ruling I think.

However using Hriston's ruling, the person behind total cover remains behind total cover and attacks without any part of them becoming exposed or visible.
 

lkwpeter

Explorer
For example, in response to someone leaning out from around a corner, attacking, and then ducking back, I would allow you to ready an action to attack them if they pop out again. If they pop out from the same place, you could then attack them before they make their attack, (although they would have 3/4 cover since they are just leaning out). This is consistent with Jeremy's ruling I think.
Concerning Jeremy's answer: If a creature behind a corner is successfully hidden + only an attack reveals the creature (not only popping out) -> then it wouldn't be possible using a Ready Action to shoot before the hidden person, but afterwards!

However using Hriston's ruling, the person behind total cover remains behind total cover and attacks without any part of them becoming exposed or visible.
Maybe I misunderstood that. Nevertheless, I think the "golden way" would be to treat it exactly the way Jeremy said. As long as a creature is hidden and not revealed, you can't target it directly. If not hidden, the normal rules concerning Line of Sight (DMG 251) are applied:

Line of Sight:To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and rrace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks visionsuch as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.

(Edit: Argh...I just realized I quoted the wrong passage from the books in my earlier post.]
 
Last edited:

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
Concerning Jeremy's answer: If a creature behind a corner is successfully hidden + only an attack reveals the creature (not only popping out) -> then it wouldn't be possible using a Ready Action to shoot before the hidden person, but afterwards!

A clarification would be that the act of popping out doesn't automatically reveal you. Which makes perfect sense. If I'm looking the other way when you pop out, then I won't see you. But if I'm looking right at where you'll pop out, then the circumstances are different. It's the "you can't hide when you can be seen clearly" part of the rules.
 

Concerning Jeremy's answer: If a creature behind a corner is successfully hidden + only an attack reveals the creature (not only popping out) -> then it wouldn't be possible using a Ready Action to shoot before the hidden person, but afterwards!
That depends on whether their Stealth check succeeded or not. If you're behind total cover, no stealth check is required because all of you is hidden. If you stick part of yourself out of the cover, that is when you need to make a stealth check, because that is when the possibility of being seen exists.

If someone is popping out of exactly the same place every round though, I'd allow at least advantage, if not automatic detection to an opponent that is specifically watching that place. I don't see that as going against Jeremy's ruling however, because that is a response to a repeated action combined with a specific declaration rather than the more general case Jeremy is addressing.

Maybe I misunderstood that. Nevertheless, I think the "golden way" would be to treat it exactly the way Jeremy said. As long as a creature is hidden and not revealed, you can't target it directly. If not hidden, the normal rules concerning Line of Sight (DMG 251) are applied:

Line of Sight:To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and rrace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks visionsuch as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.

(Edit: Argh...I just realized I quoted the wrong passage from the books in my earlier post.]
I regard that as a little too abstract, since it is too much of the "Physicist's answer".
It requires envisioning an infinitely thin attacker and weapon. I have enough trouble thinking of how that works, and I'm pretty sure that I couldn't actually explain it to my players.

Stand behind a corner. That is your total cover. Stick one arm outstretched and put the other underneath your chin. That is your arrow. Now look at something around the corner, pointing at it with your outstretched arm with a clear path to your other hand. You are now in a position to attack the object you're looking at.
Do you find that part of you relative to the object is now visible from the object's point of view? Would you regard yourself to still be in total cover relative to that object, or do you think that some of you is exposed to it?
 

Oofta

Legend
A clarification would be that the act of popping out doesn't automatically reveal you. Which makes perfect sense. If I'm looking the other way when you pop out, then I won't see you. But if I'm looking right at where you'll pop out, then the circumstances are different. It's the "you can't hide when you can be seen clearly" part of the rules.

There was a podcast on some of this a while back, where Crawford discusses not only stealth but invisibility. James Crawford on Stealth Podcast http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

Basically what he says is that they left the rules intentionally vague so you can run the game in the way that makes sense to you.
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Nice description! Sound reasonable to me. The DMG 251 states exactly what you described:

Thanks for pointing that out. I have a few small criticisms of these rules. The "Line of Sight" rules are fine, but it's important to note that it's a rule for establishing line of sight from one space to another, not to an actual creature. It's possible to see part of a creature's space without seeing the actual creature, so I think the rule can be a little misleading.

The method for establishing cover, on the other hand, seems wrong to me. Following it, for example, a medium creature behind a 5 foot section of wall only gains 1/2 cover because one side of its square is exposed from either direction. I've developed an alternative that assumes creatures will take full advantage of cover when it exists, which I've illustrated below.

To make it even clearer, you could draw the line from the bottom left edge of the attack to the botton left edge of the target. That would indisputably represent a straigh path.

Yes, it would show there's a clear path from the attacker's square to the target's square. Of course that also works the other way round, which isn't quite what I was going for. I think what I've done below clarifies things.

But is it possible to hide behind 3/4 cover?

No, I don't think it is. I think you need to be completely concealed or heavily obscured to hide. That's why I've tried to show how you can stay out of sight as you attack from hiding.

To that end, here's an illustration of my alternative method for establishing degrees of cover on a grid. In the examples below, a medium humanoid (let's say it's a rogue) is standing against a 5 foot section of wall for cover. The two maps show respectively the degrees of cover available to other medium humanoids targeted by the rogue in different squares, and the degree of cover afforded the rogue when attacked from the same squares. The method I used to determine degree of cover was if a targeted creature positioned to take advantage of cover could not be sighted from the attacker's square, that counts as total cover. If a line of sight existed from one corner of the attacker's square to the targeted creature, that counts as 3/4 cover. Two such lines counts as 1/2 cover. If the targeted creature could be sighted from three or four corners then no cover is considered to benefit the target.

When the rogue targets a creature in this space the target has...

Target has....PNG
View attachment 91625

When the rogue is targeted from this space the rogue has...

Rogue has....PNG
View attachment 91624



 
Last edited:

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
Y

But is it possible to hide behind 3/4 cover?


I'll answer with a question. If you and your buddies were playing paintball in the woods, and they were hiding behind trees that provided 3/4 cover, would you be confident that you'd see them all before somebody shot you?

To my mind, yes, 3/4 cover is more than enough depending on the circumstances. Have you ever seen a deer run into the woods, and then have trouble spotting it for a few seconds, only to determine it was right there and fairly visible? Why? Misdirection, I think. Your eyes continue in the direction you think the deer is heading, and it either stops or changes direction. The partial concealment created by the woods is more than enough to do the trick. It's happened to me.

And again, I still recommend that anybody who hasn't watched the video to count basketball passes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY

For a significant portion of the population, even 0 concealment/cover is sufficient.

Check out any statistics regarding people having accidents while looking at their phone too. Pretty much always involving things with no cover/concealment.

Again, considering the rules - it's not a question of being hidden, but being unseen at a moment in time.
 

Remove ads

Top