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

[Prism]

Using Hide is normally an action in combat, so most of the time you could not Hide and then attack in the same round anyway.

I believe the intention of the rules is that you can use an action to Hide, and then on your next turn you can attack with advantage before revealing your position. The rules say that you usually reveal your position if you approach the enemy, but peeking around a corner isn't approaching.

Well since peaking around a corner in combat isn't a rule, more a DM call. If you say that the PC has total cover while peaking around a corner then be aware that the PC can't be attacked at all or targeted with a spell. So lets assume the PC has some cover less than total cover while doing this. Then they can't be hidden in combat but we can use the DM call on distraction on a case by case basis

I am simply concerned that if we always rule that anyone behind a wall can pretty much hide and snipe with advantage then that's all rogues will do since they get to hide every round as a bonus action. It all gets a bit dull and stationary. I want it to be more difficult than that. It also works the other way. Goblins in a room with some corners would be awesome since they can do the same thing

 

[Prism]

You might be reading that a bit too literally. If everyone is staring at the exact location you're going to attack from, then okay. But if you are attacking as you lean out, you should still get the bonus for being hidden. When you are finished the attack, you're back to being under full cover, but everyone knows where the attack came from.

Some common sense needs to be applied when applying rules, rather than treating them strictly literal. D&D is a different kind of game than MtG.

See my common sense rules say you shouldn't be able to do this unless you put some effort in. Lets say move somewhere unexpected before the attack. Otherwise its too easy. A rogue could do this every round, from the same corner using their bonus hide. And lets be honest, its only really a rogue that's going to bother doing this.

I'd rather take the stance that you can't do this by default but if you can convince me that the enemies are not watching the corner (distracted) then sure, why not

 

[Agamon]

See my common sense rules say you shouldn't be able to do this unless you put some effort in. Lets say move somewhere unexpected before the attack. Otherwise its too easy. A rogue could do this every round, from the same corner using their bonus hide. And lets be honest, its only really a rogue that's going to bother doing this.

I'd rather take the stance that you can't do this by default but if you can convince me that the enemies are not watching the corner (distracted) then sure, why not

The back-and-forth ducking thing is whole other story, and I kinda agree. Though only a very dumb enemy would stand there and let him do that, so I don't think it's more than a theoretical problem.

I'm just saying, all else being equal, an attack from behind cover isn't mechanically any different than one from concealment.

 

[outsider]

See my common sense rules say you shouldn't be able to do this unless you put some effort in. Lets say move somewhere unexpected before the attack. Otherwise its too easy. A rogue could do this every round, from the same corner using their bonus hide. And lets be honest, its only really a rogue that's going to bother doing this.

As long as there's enough hiding spots around, a rogue can do this without violating common sense. You get an action, a move, and a bonus action every round. If you use your action to make your sneak attack, then move somewhere, and use your bonus action to hide, you can basically flit around from hiding spot to hiding spot, sneak attacking from somewhere different every round.

The action economy enables rogues to pull it off. The hard part is having the hiding spots. Skulker, Wood Elf, and Halfling make that way easier.

 

[Li Shenron]

See my common sense rules say you shouldn't be able to do this unless you put some effort in. Lets say move somewhere unexpected before the attack. Otherwise its too easy. A rogue could do this every round, from the same corner using their bonus hide. And lets be honest, its only really a rogue that's going to bother doing this.

I'd rather take the stance that you can't do this by default but if you can convince me that the enemies are not watching the corner (distracted) then sure, why not

As long as there's enough hiding spots around, a rogue can do this without violating common sense. You get an action, a move, and a bonus action every round. If you use your action to make your sneak attack, then move somewhere, and use your bonus action to hide, you can basically flit around from hiding spot to hiding spot, sneak attacking from somewhere different every round.

The action economy enables rogues to pull it off. The hard part is having the hiding spots. Skulker, Wood Elf, and Halfling make that way easier.

I think the real problem with this sniping tactic is that once again "hiding" is not the same as getting behind cover, and is not the same as being unseen.

From the previous discussion, it seems implied that "hide" is what you do when you want to cause your enemies not to know your location. So they don't see where your attack is coming from.

Getting behind a wall makes you covered (which has it own benefits, entirely defensive) and unseen. But they know where you are: you are behind that wall.

Now, once you're behind that wall, you may want to hide if you further want to make it so that if someone walks behind the wall to reach you, they won't find you (because you're not only behind the wall, you are also hidden further somewhere there... provided there is also concealment or another cover for you).

But sniping cannot be that easy IMHO. You have given away your location (behind the tree, behind the column, behind the corner, behind an ally if you're a Lightfoot Halfling...) when you did your first attack. You are going to attack again from the same location. It shouldn't matter at all to make a Hide check at this point. You don't need a Hide check to get back behind the tree/column/corner/ally, you only need to use 5ft of your movement, or even 0ft. But at the same time you don't benefit from a Hide check because your location IS the tree/column/corner/ally, you've already made everyone aware of that, another Hide check cannot make them forget this information.

In the best case, I can imagine you may want to allow a "special" Hide check to negate the possibility of someone to notice your location in the first place (when you reveal it by attacking). But by the RAW, this is automatic if you attack.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Can anyone suggest some good hiding rules from another system, which I cannuse in substitute for the 5e hidden/unseen etc mess..?

 

[variant]

Can anyone suggest some good hiding rules from another system, which I cannuse in substitute for the 5e hidden/unseen etc mess..?

There is no mess. The rules are broad and less defined because 5e is designed to allow the most flexibility to the DM and relies on his judgement calls. There is absolutely no way a single ruleset can cover every possible scenario and when it tries, you get a metagame where players try to get every little bit of advantage out of the rule system. People that are used to 3e and 4e are simply having trouble adapting to it

 

[Psikerlord#]

There is no mess. The rules are broad and less defined because 5e is designed to allow the most flexibility to the DM and relies on his judgement calls. There is absolutely no way a single ruleset can cover every possible scenario and when it tries, you get a metagame where players try to get every little bit of advantage out of the rule system. People that are used to 3e and 4e are simply having trouble adapting to it

I would agree, if theyd said - its your dms judgment call - but they didnt say that, unfortunately..... so instead we have a big mess of unclear, inconsistent rules, which is why were getting arguments, as this thread exemplifies. And this should have been sorted out in playtests - in fact, what were the playtest hide rules...?

 

[variant]

I would agree, if theyd said - its your dms judgment call - but they didnt say that, unfortunately..... so instead we have a big mess of unclear, inconsistent rules, which is why were getting arguments, as this thread exemplifies. And this should have been sorted out in playtests - in fact, what were the playtest hide rules...?

They don't need to say that. It's automatically assumed for all rules that it is the DM's judgement call.

 

[Psikerlord#]

They don't need to say that. It's automatically assumed for all rules that it is the DM's judgement call.

Thats a cop out. If they wanted hiding to be dm discretion, they should have highlighted snd emphasized that, which they have not done. Instead they have attempted to codify it and done a bad job. Dont misunderstand me, id love for that to be a throw away sentence in the hiding rules, that if youre unsure or dont like it - dm discretion applies. Devs, if youre following this thread, please cure all our rule finicky woes and put this golden rule into the DMG as clear as day. Thank you.