D&D 5E Any further clarification to Hiding in Player's Handbook?

[Prism]

Its looking like being able to hide when heavily obscured is stronger than hiding behind total cover, at least in combat terms. Mainly because when behind total cover you can't attack and if you attempt to you are seen before the attack. Is there anyway to maintain your hidden state with three-quarters cover during combat? If so shooting from around a corner might work

However attacking when you are totally obscured and gaining an attack with advantage is possible by a number of methods - even something as simple as you are in the dark and the opponent in the light.

The hidden part as I see it more about your defence, at least in combat. You can't be targeted easily

 

[outsider]

Its looking like being able to hide when heavily obscured is stronger than hiding behind total cover, at least in combat terms. Mainly because when behind total cover you can't attack and if you attempt to you are seen before the attack. Is there anyway to maintain your hidden state with three-quarters cover during combat? If so shooting from around a corner might work

However attacking when you are totally obscured and gaining an attack with advantage is possible by a number of methods - even something as simple as you are in the dark and the opponent in the light.

The hidden part as I see it more about your defence, at least in combat. You can't be targeted easily

The PHB isn't clear on this. One thing it is clear on: you need to be Heavily Obscured to hide, unless you have a character feature that says otherwise. I'm personally of the belief that 3/4s cover should grant you at least Lightly Obscured, but the rules don't say either way. I'd probably rule one of two things:

1/2 Cover makes you Lightly Obscured and 3/4s Cover makes you Heavily Obscured
or
1/2 Cover leaves you unobscured and 3/4s Cover makes you Lightly Obscured.

 

[Agamon]

Its looking like being able to hide when heavily obscured is stronger than hiding behind total cover, at least in combat terms. Mainly because when behind total cover you can't attack and if you attempt to you are seen before the attack. Is there anyway to maintain your hidden state with three-quarters cover during combat? If so shooting from around a corner might work

However attacking when you are totally obscured and gaining an attack with advantage is possible by a number of methods - even something as simple as you are in the dark and the opponent in the light.

The hidden part as I see it more about your defence, at least in combat. You can't be targeted easily

You can attack from cover without moving, assuming you're near a side of the cover. TotM, just imagine leaning out and throwing a dagger. With minis and grid, if you can draw a line from one corner of your square to the center of the target, you can attack. So at the corner of a wall, for example, one of the top corners of the square will have access to an open target on the other side.

Of course, if you're behind and in the middle of a 20' tall, 60' long wall and your enemies are behind it, yeah, you'll need to move.

Edit: also, if your position in known, you can be targeted while hidden in obscurement with disadvantage.

 

[Prism]

You can attack from cover without moving, assuming you're near a side of the cover. TotM, just imagine leaning out and throwing a dagger. With minis and grid, if you can draw a line from one corner of your square to the center of the target, you can attack. So at the corner of a wall, for example, one of the top corners of the square will have access to an open target on the other side.
.

Yeah that's the way we would do it in previous editions. For example in 4th you would stay hidden if you maintained partial cover and could therefore lean out and thrown with all the benefits of being hidden. However, in 5e it seems you must maintain total cover if behind a wall for example, and so leaning out without revealing yourself is not possible. So no advantage on the attack and no sneak damage as a rogue however you do get a +2 or +5 to your AC and Dex saves assuming you don't move. If you do this before combat however then it comes down to a DM call on how distracted your enemy is.

 

[fjw70]

Yeah that's the way we would do it in previous editions. For example in 4th you would stay hidden if you maintained partial cover and could therefore lean out and thrown with all the benefits of being hidden. However, in 5e it seems you must maintain total cover if behind a wall for example, and so leaning out without revealing yourself is not possible. So no advantage on the attack and no sneak damage as a rogue however you do get a +2 or +5 to your AC and Dex saves assuming you don't move. If you do this before combat however then it comes down to a DM call on how distracted your enemy is.

Even during combat the DM could rule the target is distracted enough for the tactic to work.

 

[Prism]

Even during combat the DM could rule the target is distracted enough for the tactic to work.

Yeah good point. An example could be that the rogue hides behind a wall, spends a round or two drinking a potion(s) and when they move back to the corner and have a peak around they discover that the battle has moved away somewhat. The enemy wizard on the balcony does notice the rogue but not the ogre currently in melee with the party fighter. The rogue throws a dagger with advantage against the ogre

 

[Uller]

I dont think of a stealtth check in combat to necessarily be just an attempt to hide, but an attempt to remain hidden long enough to gain advantage on your attack or move to another location without someone noticing you.

Real life example: I used to play a ton of paintball. I learned how to move while opposing players were busy shooting to get in a better position. In one game I was approaching a large fallen tree root. I could hear opposing players on the other side of it firing. They seemed unaware of me but certainly could have been wary. So in game terms they had concealment and cover from me but were not hidden. I was hidden from them. I timed my movement so I could get to a spot where I could see them. They remained unaware of me even though I was now in a position where they could see me. There were two of them so I waited for one to start to reload...then shot his buddy in the head (attack with advantage plus sneak attack). The reloading guy could not return fire so got up to run...so I shot him in the back.

So basically I have characters make stealth checks when it becomes relevant. If they meved to a location where they cant be seen they are hidden. They will make a stealth check when a) another character might see them (stealth vs passive perception) b) another character spends an action to find them (stealth vs perception or investigation) or c) the hidden character attempts to move (stealth vs passive perception). I'll apply advantage or disadvantage based on circumstances and the distance of the move.

If you are not out of sight but in a place with decent hiding places (a warehouse full of crates or a field full of brush) you can us an action to hide. Rogues can us cunning action.

 

[Agamon]

Yeah that's the way we would do it in previous editions. For example in 4th you would stay hidden if you maintained partial cover and could therefore lean out and thrown with all the benefits of being hidden. However, in 5e it seems you must maintain total cover if behind a wall for example, and so leaning out without revealing yourself is not possible. So no advantage on the attack and no sneak damage as a rogue however you do get a +2 or +5 to your AC and Dex saves assuming you don't move. If you do this before combat however then it comes down to a DM call on how distracted your enemy is.

You reveal yourself when you attack, not before. If you want to stay hidden, you just don't attack. But you can reveal yourself long enough to attack, as long as you don't have to move to do so.

 

[Prism]

You reveal yourself when you attack, not before. If you want to stay hidden, you just don't attack. But you can reveal yourself long enough to attack, as long as you don't have to move to do so.

I can't see anywhere it says that. What it does say is

"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses"

If you are leaning out from cover to make an attack you do not have total cover and therefore are not hidden in the first place and non of this applies. That would at best be three-quarters cover which isn't enough. As in the posts a few above this, that may work with a distraction

The rule does apply to attacking while obscured though hence why I originally said it would work better in combat

 

[Uller]

If you are leaning out from cover to make an attack you do not have total cover and therefore are not hidden in the first place and non of this applies. That would at best be three-quarters cover which isn't enough. As in the posts a few above this, that may work with a distraction

Right...and this is why I have the attacker make the stealth check at the point he emerges from total concealment. It is to see if he has been able to take advantage of his targets distraction. If the target isn't alert or in melee I might give the attacker advantage on the stealth check. If the target is expecting the target to emerge from somewhere I'll give disadvantage to the hide check. If the target is readied and watching specifically that spot the check might automatically fail.