Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="merwins" data-source="post: 7081880" data-attributes="member: 6829883">This is an extremely timely thread. Let's say a party is traveling through the hills. The rogue is wandering off and being stealthy. Rolled a stealth check and everything. But they can't actually see anyone to hide from. Are they still sneaky enough to stay hidden? Rules seem exceptionally hand-wavey. I'm okay with that, but I just want to be sure I'm not overlooking anything. Seems to me you can hide from something you can't see, but you can't hide from something that can see you. (EDIT: LORDY, I missed reading an entire section of posts. Feel free to ignore the above unless you feel compelled to respond.) I have ruled at my table that you can hide only if your opponent cannot be sure of your location at the time you attempt to hide. This prevents rogues from taking a step behind any available cover and hiding immediately after making an attack. Regardless of whether I can't see you because you're obscured, I know EXACTLY where you are. If I'm even remotely paying attention, I KNOW you're behind that rock. I can target it with a ready action and plink you when you pop out to make your "sneak" attack. I know this isn't necessarily by the book, but for my sanity, I've had to do it. My halfling Sharpshooter-enabled rogue with Crossbow Expert would otherwise be insanely powerful, using his Bonus action to Hide every round (for advantage on attacks) no matter what, with ridiculous sneak attack bonuses EVERY round from allies next to opponents. There's some additional DM-management around this rule, but it seems to slow down the abuse from every round to every other round, which is at least more manageable. Is there any circumstance under which an attack does NOT reveal a hidden attacker?</blockquote>

Verification