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

[Dausuul]

So, nobody can hide in bushes? Ever?

Bushes dense enough to hide in constitute heavy obscurement IMO. In borderline cases, I might say you can hide but you get disadvantage on the Stealth check.

It's more a question of "Can you hide by standing in a shadow?" And the answer is no, unless you're extraordinarily good at hiding (Skulker feat).

 

[KarinsDad]

Bushes dense enough to hide in constitute heavy obscurement IMO. In borderline cases, I might say you can hide but you get disadvantage on the Stealth check.

It's more a question of "Can you hide by standing in a shadow?" And the answer is no, unless you're extraordinarily good at hiding (Skulker feat).

Yeah, I wouldn't rule that way.

I've played paintball a lot. It's easy to hide in light vegetation. Sure, someone will spot you sooner or later, but it's not that hard to be mostly non-visible behind a single fallen log or some small bushes.

If light obscurement is enough to give disadvantage to perception, it should be good enough to hide in. Otherwise, why have that light obscurement disadvantage rule at all if everyone can clearly be seen in light obscurement?

Just looking into the fog, the blurry guy standing there next to the wall just looks like a vague blob, he's not obviously a person. He might just be a towel hanging on the wall.


To me, the wild elf and the skulking abilities allow those types of PCs to stealth in those difficult visual situations while in combat "He was there a moment ago. Where'd he go?". Normal PCs cannot do that, but wild elves can. But with your ruling, nobody could ever hide behind a small bush or a chair or a tapestry. Their big toe is sticking out, so everyone spots them immediately.

What good is having stealth rules if people cannot hide except in the densest jungles?

 

[Johs]

I think I will talk to my DM about Heavily Obscured and Full Cover. If they cannot see or target you, you should be able to hide ... I am totally fine with a PC re-hiding as long as it makes sense.

They CAN hide whenever opponent's cannot see them, but as soon as they move (to be able to attack the enemy) they lose their hiding place. So whats the point?

The concept that one needs to be some special race or have a special feat in order to hide mid-combat seems strange in D&D. Not that it should be easy to hide in combat, it should not. Only in perfect storm situations (like the one with the Desk and other furniture around) should there even be a chance.

You can hide when you have 100% coverage... but then you can't attack, unless they come to you. So you cannot use this to hide/attack/hide/attack "in combat". The special race and the skulker feat CREATE the scenario where YOU only need light obscurement (shadows, mist, a desk) to hide, and you can STILL SEE your opponent, so you can still attack them.

And this solves the Lightfoot Halfling thing too (at least in my mind) which there were several threads on. He cannot just re-hide in combat behind a larger PC unless the DM rules that he can (typically first round before foes know where he is). Once he attacks, everyone knows where he is. But there will be times in combat when he can re-hide, but they would tend to be rare. He would need to be totally unseen again (go invisible, go behind total cover, etc.) in order to hide again.

The lightfoot halfling can SPECIFICALLY hide right there in combat, with only the coverage from another person. But i agree that the enemy 'still knows hes there' they just cannot detect him, giving him Advantage on his attacks. But they'd certainly prioritize the pair of them with a fireball.

(typically first round before foes know where he is)

This is the conditions for every normal PC to be in stealth in every normal situation. By your example the Lightfoot Halfling would have no benefit.

If a PC can be totally unseen and unheard in combat, then it resets the clock so to speak. He goes behind total cover and then goes into lightly obscured and hides, the NPC that goes looking for him still needs to find him because he re-hid out of sight of the NPC.

I totally agree, he's found a 'hiding spot' but this doesn't let him ATTACK every turn with Advantage, because he cannot leave total cover without exposing himself (without the Skulker perk). Imagine round after round, the rogue comes from behind the total cover, fires at you, and returns behind his total cover (and hides). Can you attack him? No. Is he in total cover? Yes. Is he hiding? Yep, so even if I ran over there, he can elude me if he's very stealthy.

However, on each of the rogue's attacks, when he comes back out from behind the desk and fires at me, are you 'surprised' ? Are you being 'attacked by an unseens attacker?' Is the rogue 'in his hiding place?' No. So effectively, total cover lets you HIDE, and it's 'in combat' but this is not at all what I was discussing when I say "Hide In Combat" I'm talking about effectively Hiding + Firing + Hiding + Firing, to gain Advantage from stealth.

This requires a Lightfoot Halfling, a Wood elf in mist, or Skulker "the perk that lets you do it". Even with these things, you need SOME qualification (light obscurement) for instance, it needs to be dark. In a dark room in a dungeon, or behind some furniture, the Skulker has no obscurement. On a bright beach in the sun, the Skulker has no obscurement.

The Lightfoot Halfling can ALWAYS hide behind his buddy though, even in broad daylight.

 

[Johs]

I've played paintball a lot. It's easy to hide in light vegetation. Sure, someone will spot you sooner or later, but it's not that hard to be mostly non-visible behind a single fallen log or some small bushes.

If light obscurement is enough to give disadvantage to perception, it should be good enough to hide in. Otherwise, why have that light obscurement disadvantage rule at all if everyone can clearly be seen in light obscurement?

To me, the wild elf and the skulking abilities allow those types of PCs to stealth in those difficult visual situations while in combat "He was there a moment ago. Where'd he go?". Normal PCs cannot do that, but wild elves can. But with your ruling, nobody could ever hide behind a small bush or a chair or a tapestry. Their big toe is sticking out, so everyone spots them immediately.

Perfect examples!! Okay, you're playing paintball, you're 30' away from your friend. He lies down in 'light vegetation' where he could make a nice sniper's nest, BUT YOU CAN SEE HIM DO IT. Are you saying he has the qualifications he needs to 'hide' while an opponent has visibility of him? Of course not, hes right there, and you shoot him.

Now, if you weren't there when he 'hide' you'd have a classic sniper in brush scenario. He's right there, he's quite visible, but you're not aware of him and he's not moving (hiding spot) and he'll get to shoot at you from hiding.

The SKULKER does get to be 30' away from you, and lie down in the bushes, and you go WOAHHHH where did he go!? Because thats the POINT of the feat.

What good is having stealth rules if people cannot hide except in the densest jungles?

Confusing Stealth and 'Hiding' again. Everyone can sneak around in a jungle, and get Advantage on their opening attack on opponents who dont see you. Once a fight in the jungle breaks out, (without getting TOTAL concealment) you cant go "HIDE" and duck behind a tree, and expect the enemies to not know you're behind that tree. They know you're there, they can 'detect' you, you can't "Hide" as an action. You get coverage... but otherwise you're implying that cover = hiding, as long as you waste your action / cunning action, and it doesn't. Otherwise the Skulker Feat would be pointless, and Feats are supposed to be very potent.

 

[Johs]

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.

Why doesn't the rogue need any coverage to hide in combat? I think I missed that rule?

Haha, by 'not in combat' I meant "when you're NOT in combat" you don't need coverage to hide. You're allowed to simply try to find a hiding spot. We all assume your stealth/skill result explains whether you did or didn't find appropriate places to hide. If you roll a 1, we're all making the joke that you tried to hide in the middle of the room without coverage. But coverage isn't a "requirement" to hide (out of combat).

IN COMBAT - I'm saying the complete opposite and then some. Coverage does not prevent visibility, and hide clearly says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you" p.177 Hiding. It also says "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." So, while I would allow a rogue with 'full coverage' to hide, if he then moves out from full coverage (he needs to see his enemy to attack) he loses his hiding place. 'being a rogue' isn't qualification for hiding, moving, firing and still getting advantage on your attack in combat. However, it's certainly useful for avoiding ENEMY attacks to fire, run, and use your bonus action to hide if you're in full coverage.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, I wouldn't rule that way.

I've played paintball a lot. It's easy to hide in light vegetation. Sure, someone will spot you sooner or later, but it's not that hard to be mostly non-visible behind a single fallen log or some small bushes.

If light obscurement is enough to give disadvantage to perception, it should be good enough to hide in. Otherwise, why have that light obscurement disadvantage rule at all if everyone can clearly be seen in light obscurement?

Just looking into the fog, the blurry guy standing there next to the wall just looks like a vague blob, he's not obviously a person. He might just be a towel hanging on the wall.

Well, hang on. Are we discussing how to interpret the rules, or how to house-rule them to make more sense?

As far as interpretation goes, the rules are very explicit: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you." That's from the Ability Scores chapter, not the Combat chapter, and there is nothing to suggest that this is meant to apply only in combat. There are some vague spots in the stealth rules, but this isn't one of them. Barring a special ability that grants an exception, you can't hide from a creature that can see you, end of story.

Now, I agree that there really ought to be a possible case where you are semi-visible and might avoid being seen, but also might not. In this case, the logical approach would be one Stealth check to make yourself unseen and a second to make yourself hidden... which means you need to make two Stealth checks and succeed at both, which is essentially equivalent to a Stealth check with disadvantage. So: In such borderline cases, you can hide but have disadvantage on the Stealth check. (I would not apply disadvantage to the observer's Perception, since without the light-verging-on-heavy obscurement, no check would even be possible.)

Also as stated above, if you're not moving, I'd be inclined to give you advantage on the Stealth check. If you're imperfectly concealed, the advantage and disadvantage cancel out.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe, there is an advantage in 5e rules. The DM and the Player can just talk about the situation an decide if one can hide or not.
It is just that easy.

I mean, in a real game the DM decides where exactly all the tree trunks or furniture pieces are. And sometimes they suddenly appear, when a player asks for them. Only if a battlemap is drawn, you might believe everything is set in stone. But can you really decide if something is big enough to hide behind, or a bush is dense enough, just from the picture?
I guess not.

In nearly every situation, the dialogue works like that:

Player: "Is the bush dense enough so that I can hide behind it? And maybe get closer to the enemy?"

DM: "sure, at least your character believes so. Roll your dexterity check"

Player rolls: "1" (failed the passive perception by more than 5)
DM: You can hide behind the bush, but you make some noise, when you were trying to get a look at the Orc. He looks directly into your eyes. Roll initative.

Or:
Player rolls: "8" (failed the passive perception by 5 or less)
DM: "You make some noise, crawling through the bushes and the Orc is looking around into your general direction."
Player: "I stop moving, trying to make no more noises"
Next round: Orc makes a disadvantaged wisdom check against your dexterity.
Orc rolls a 20 and a 5
DM: "For a moment the Orc looks directly at you, but after the longest second of your life, he looks away again at the fire where his meal is cooking"

Or:
Player rolls a "13" (beating the Orcs passive perception)
DM: "You crawl silently to the edge of the clearing, hiding behind the bush. You can observe the Orc looking for his meal cooking i the fireplace"

So all of that works in a noncombat scenario, or at the beginning of combat. During combat I would rule out ducking behind a bush and reappearing to shoot with advantage. This may work once, when the orc is surprised, but next time I would at least give the PC disadvantage. There is always the sanity check. If you as a DM use such a tactic against the PC, would they have a good time? Such "exploits" are usually not liked by the players. During a goblin ambush I would at least have them move between two shots, so that their location is not obvious. A halfling constantly ducking behind his human friend is also annoying. This trick should work once well. After that, the tactic becomes obvious and stealth checks are made with disadvantage, or maybe better, the passive erception raises by 5 everytime you try to fool the same person.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Remember: light obscurement is enough when you sneak towards someone or hide there if the enemy does not know what to look for. (I think it is a shame that they removed the search for rule of investigation, and everythling is perception now...)

But you can´t hide behind a bush or a log, when the enemy is looking at you while you do that... except, when you have a "hide in plain sight" ability like the wood elf or the lightfoot halfling, and even then, in the case of the halfling, I would use common sense. (He has to be there, because he can go nowhere else...)

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, hang on. Are we discussing how to interpret the rules, or how to house-rule them to make more sense?

As far as interpretation goes, the rules are very explicit: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you." That's from the Ability Scores chapter, not the Combat chapter, and there is nothing to suggest that this is meant to apply only in combat.

I do not interpret the phrase "You can't hide from a creature that can see you." to mean "You can't hide from a creature that can possibly see you.".

I interpret the phrase "You can't hide from a creature that can see you." to mean "You can't hide from a creature that sees you.".

I opine that the wording is just poor. Now, someone might state that I am making up a house rule and that's fine if someone does. I just think that the game is fun if PCs can hide behind 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, total cover, light obscurement and heavy obscurement with various chances of success pre-NPC spotting them, rather than they can only hide behind total cover and heavy obscurement because the first interpretation of this sentence means that in every other case, at least one body part is sticking out and always making them visible.


With my interpretation of this sentence, a PC can often hide before combat and get an advantaged attack in either the surprise round or round one. After that, they can no longer hide shy of special abilities or the perfect storm of a scenario. The vast majority of the time, a PC can only hide if they stay hidden and they were not spotted before hiding.

A more literal interpretation of that sentence does not sound fun to me. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Uchawi]

I agree the key to hiding is sight, and as long as a creature can see, even with negative modifiers, including disadvantage, then you can not hide. If the DM or player wants to interpret/negotiate some middle ground where exceptions occur, that are not covered by special abilities (race, class, magic item, etc.) then it would be considered a house rule.