D&D 5E Attacking from Stealth. When you can / cant Hide - A thorough breakdown

[KarinsDad]

You're misquoting everything I said. I said cover does not allow you to HIDE, since cover does not stop an opponent from 'seeing' you.

I'm not trying to misquote you. I'm trying to understand.

So, a Rogue cannot hide behind cover at all. Can he hide behind lightly obscured bushes? If so, which rule prevents him from hiding behind the cover, but allows him to hide behind the lightly obscured bushes?

 

[Johs]

You're literally wrong here. "Helping" your ally search for traps is in the rules, and yes, the guy searching for traps gets Advantage because his party member is helping (without rolling himself).

"All of the PCs" Dont roll trap searches in 5E, only the best guy does, with Advantage, because someone is going to be helping him, literally by standing over his shoulder and saying "that might be a trap...." or as in your example "there's probably a rogue in those bushes".

 

[KarinsDad]

You're literally wrong here. "Helping" your ally search for traps is in the rules, and yes, the guy searching for traps gets Advantage because his party member is helping (without rolling himself).

"All of the PCs" Dont roll trap searches in 5E, only the best guy does, with Advantage, because someone is going to be helping him, literally by standing over his shoulder and saying "that might be a trap...." or as in your example "there's probably a rogue in those bushes".]

Ok, now I am starting to understand where you are coming from. I didn't actually mean that multiple PCs would be searching, hence, the confusion.

So, you are using the Working Together rules to indicate that Orc two lets Orc one know about the Rogue. But, Orc one does not actually see the Hiding Rogue unless his Perception (advantage and disadvantage canceling) ties or beats the Rogues Stealth.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're misquoting everything I said. I said cover does not allow you to HIDE, since cover does not stop an opponent from 'seeing' you.

Now you're talking about a separate sense, where the rogue does or doesn't literally have anything to hide behind, when no one is around to oppose him finding a good hiding place.

Yes, I'm saying in 'combat' ducking behind a desk doesn't make enemies go braindead, and not be able to fathom where you are. They know exactly where you are, you are behind the desk.

Now, when you enter a room and someone in that room had been hiding, its a GM's call what you're hiding behind (or who cares). You're now bringing up a case where there is 'nothing' to hide behind, which is again a GM's issue. If he wants to say that you 'cant' hide in broad daylight, or in an empty room, so be it. But the rules aren't talking about this, they're talking about taking the 'hide' action in a normal circumstance.

Actually, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about:

a) Not combat.
b) What can a Rogue hide behind with nobody near him? Which of 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, full cover, light obscurement, heavy obscurement?

I'm not talking about him hiding once he is already seen.

 

[Johs]

I'm not trying to misquote you. I'm trying to understand.

So, a Rogue cannot hide behind cover at all. Can he hide behind lightly obscured bushes? If so, which rule prevents him from hiding behind the cover, but allows him to hide behind the lightly obscured bushes?

I mentioned this several times over, so it's hard to have a conversation with you if you aren't actually reading the messages.

The rules say "you can't hide from a creature that can see you". Its in the Hiding section on page 177. Cover does not prevent them from seeing you, neither does lightly obscured bushes. Full Cover says they cant target you, and you are 'completely obscured'. So you could Hide, but you also couldn't attack your foe, and when you leave your hiding place and move toward an enemy, unless the GM allows you special consideration, you've left your hiding place.

So 'in combat' repeated hiding seems to work under only 3 conditions : You're a Lightfoot Halfing, you're a wood elf, or you have the Skulker feat.

 

[Johs]

Actually, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about:

a) Not combat.
b) What can a Rogue hide behind with nobody near him? Which of 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, full cover, light obscurement, heavy obscurement?

I'm not talking about him hiding once he is already seen.

Not in combat, a rogue doesn't need ANY coverage to hide. He can simply hide, and when the opponent approaches the rogue compares his Stealth (Dexterity) to their Passive Perception. If there is light obscurement, the Passive Perception is reduced by 5.

 

[Psikerlord#]

This topic has come up a few times. The devs answer is: it's DM's call, and we intentionally made the hiding rules that way on purpose.

Even better, I understand the DMG will encourage DM rulings, and tweaking the rules to best suit their table. So, you will get the stealth rule you want, provided that's what your table and DM want.

 

[Johs]

For the most part, I of course agree. Whether a rogue can hide in any specific circumstance is always a DM's call. But it's not a DM's call "whether a rogue can hide and then gain advantage on every attack of every turn because Cunning Action says he can hide, or not". One doubles his effectiveness in combat.

 

[Psikerlord#]

For the most part, I of course agree. Whether a rogue can hide in any specific circumstance is always a DM's call. But it's not a DM's call "whether a rogue can hide and then gain advantage on every attack of every turn because Cunning Action says he can hide, or not". One doubles his effectiveness in combat.

I dunno, I still kinda think it is ultimately the DM's call. If there is going to be a ruling against what might be expected however, then the DM would want to tell his players about it BEFORE they make up their PCs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Doesn't this seem odd to you?

That just because Orc two sees him (potentially or even probably from a different angle) that Orc One autosees him? No roll necessary.

There is a roll necessary. The rogue is still invisible. If he does not move, I would require an active perception check. (Advantage for knowing what to look for cancelling disadvantage for light obscurement.)

Seems pretty easy to make rulings.

In your example above: The passive perception has always to be beaten by the rogue when he tries to hide. If he does not move I would give disadvantage to the orc (-5 to passive perception) because he needs to rely on sight to detect the PC. If the hidden creture moves, the orc has its normal passive perception as a defense vs stealth, as the rogue also tries to be silent.