D&D 5E (2014) Can a Reach Weapon stop someone attacking you?

[lumenbeing]

Here is what Mike Mearls has to say about attempting to hide in 5e:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/511918248774742016

 

[AriochQ]

I have no problem with trying to hit someone with the butt end of a pole arm from 10'. One on one, no problem. It a powerful feature. The problem comes from the specific situation of trying to do it when there is a creature standing between attacker and target. Now if the attacker and target are both human, and the guy I between is a halfling, THEN I might allow them to use the feature.
As iserith so eloquently put it, it all depends on the fiction as to what is an auto hit, auto fail or a possibility. We are talking about fiction, not the real world, but the rules are there to guide us through adjudicating that fictional world. The application of advantage or disadvantage give you even more range to do so.
Your view of "a feature works in every situation no matter what" is quite frankly, dull and boring.

Every feature does not work in every situation, but I don't feel the need to rewrite RAW when it is pretty clear that if the game designers had meant to limit a feature in the manner in which you describe they would have done so. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, since 5e is about rulings and not rules, but I am also pretty sure your ruling is flawed as well. But hey, so long as you and your players are happy with the outcome, so be it.

 

[MarkB]

If a halfling successfully hides behind an ally while being observed, then fair enough, he can't currently be seen. He has, however, chosen a very obvious piece of cover.

 

[AriochQ]

Here is what Mike Mearls has to say about attempting to hide in 5e:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/511918248774742016

A collection of Mike's twitter comments regarding Stealth/Rogues. Notice in almost every case, the Rogue is able to attack and/or hide with either advantage or disadvantage even when the creature knows they are there. In no case is it an auto fail.

Assuming this above point in clear, the debate turns to what 'Obscured' means in relation to Naturally Stealthy. Prior posts imply that they actually mean 'cover', but I am not sure if MM has made a specific comment on that point.


Those Sneaky Rogues

Rogue hidden behind tree. Can he shoot an arrow with advantage, or does stepping out negate it? Re-hide behind same tree after? DM's call - suggest atk with advantage, but disad to hide again. IMO if rogue sees target from hiding while hidden, can attack. -M

Could a rogue hidden behind cover run to a target & Sneak Attack; are they hidden until after attacking or after leaving cover? hidden until leave, but Adam might rule creature is distracted -M Rogue Hides behind tree. Ogre can't see him. Leans out, shoots ogre, returns. Advantage on attack? Sneak attack? Same next turn? I would say advantage on attack, disadvantage on check to hide again. -M

If a rogue attacks an enemy when emerging from a cover source, does he still gain benefit of stealth in the attack? Only if the rogue is still hidden when making the attack. -M

 

[youtellatale]

Here is what Mike Mearls has to say about attempting to hide in 5e:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mikemearls/status/511918248774742016

For reference, Mearls has stated that what he says in his tweets are how he would rule at his table, not RAI, that is for Crawford to determine.

I'd also reference you to the errata that was released yesterday http://http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf. This states that you must be seen clearly - and that it is up to the DM to determine this. If you rule that a Halfling can never hide behind an ally while in combat, that's fine and your table's ruling but I see that as a huge houserule that negates the entire racial ability.

 

[AriochQ]

If a halfling successfully hides behind an ally while being observed, then fair enough, he can't currently be seen. He has, however, chosen a very obvious piece of cover.

I agree. He is hidden, but unless he has some way to move without remaining in cover, he will be seen rather quickly.

 

[AriochQ]

For reference, Mearls has stated that what he says in his tweets are how he would rule at his table, not RAI, that is for Crawford to determine.

I'd also reference you to the errata that was released yesterday http://http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf. This states that you must be seen clearly - and that it is up to the DM to determine this. If you rule that a Halfling can never hide behind an ally while in combat, that's fine and your table's ruling but I see that as a huge houserule that negates the entire racial ability.

As is his houserule that Polearm Master cannot use the bonus attack if fighting from a second rank. Fine if he wants to use it as his table, but it does negate an ability that would normally be granted RAW.

 

[youtellatale]

As is his houserule that Polearm Master cannot use the bonus attack if fighting from a second rank. Fine if he wants to use it as his table, but it does negate an ability that would normally be granted RAW.

I agree completely, I think his rulings are not RAW or RAI, but they are his to make at his table. I referenced the errata so that he could see that the rules are actually counter to his ruling. Anyway, every table plays differently so I can't harp on him too much. I wouldn't want to play with it this way but if it works for him then kudos, as long as he doesn't call it RAW.

 

[iserith]

And with this DM, it appears you can only hide when no one can see you. Even when the rules say that a halfling can attempt to hide when obscured by a creature one size larger. The ruling is 'attempt to hide' = you fail because even though you are obscured, the creature can still see you.

Now we have degenrated into what 'attempt to hide' means. It pretty clearly means that the character can make some sort of check. It is also pretty clear that a halfling who has Naturally Stealthy is obscured and can make a check. Advantage/disadvantage may apply and the creature may be able to use active rather than passive perception in some instances.

You may not remain hidden, but you are allowed to hide behind an ally in this case. If it is clear you are hiding behind an ally, a creature could still target the space but cover could apply.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4148631

Part 1 Hiding:

When you want to hide, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. This check is against the Passive Perception (determined by each creature's Wisdom score, more on this below) of creatures around you. Several factors revolve around becoming and remaining hidden. Sight and Noise being the most common.

What does hiding get me in general?:

-Advantage on attack rolls against creatures you are hiding from.

-If you manage to beat a creature's Passive Perception score, you are considered hidden from it. Creature's who can't see you have disadvantage on attack rolls against you. This is true weither the attacker is guessing the target's location or if it the attacker is targeting a creature it can hear but not see (an invisible one for example). If the hiding creature is not in the location that is targeted by the attack, the attack automatically misses.

-There are many more benefits possible depending on your class, race, etc... Monsters also have many unique abilities and features that player characters cannot access easily if at all.

I make no judgment as to a DM's particular ruling in this discussion. What I'm factually stating is that a player is not entitled to any sort of check for any action he or she has his or her character take in the game. A check is used to resolve uncertainty that the DM establishes. If the DM says that the orc can see the halfling despite the halfling's attempt to hide behind the human, then that's what happens - the DM narrates the results of the adventures' actions. If the DM says the fictional action of hiding behind the human has an uncertain outcome, an ability check is called for.

A player has no recourse to the rules which serve the DM who brings them into play as needed. A player only has recourse to the fiction. It is, of course, reasonable for a player whose character is in an exact or substantially similar fictional situation to expect to make a check for a given fictional action (or to succeed outright or fail outright) if he or she has done so before. But players are not entitled in any way to make one without the DM's say so. In fact, if you're a player, you want to strive for auto-success. Asking or demanding to make a check is just asking for a chance to fail!

If a player has an issue with his or her DM's rulings, that's a discussion to be had outside the context of the game.

 

[lumenbeing]

AriochQ has asserted that I'm on a "slippery slope" because of how I choose to rule. I assume he would say the same to MIke Mearls.

The reason I rule the way I do is because players try to exploit sneak attack. For a rogue, sneak attack and hiding go hand in hand. So letting a rogue dip behind his friend and call that hiding, let's him call his next bow shot a sneak attack. Then he says he hides behind the ally after the shot. This goes on and on. So in that stupid, 4e influenced fictional world, the enemy he is firing upon is so stupid that he never expects that arrow to come flying out at him. A "naturally stealthy" racial ability is not the ability to turn your target into a retard. So no, I'm not "negating the entire racial ability" A thoughtful player will hear me describe the footfalls of the goblins coming from down the hall, about the turn the corner, and they will hide behind their big barbarian friend, then they will get ONE sneak attack shot off. Maybe then they run around a corner and try to hide behind their donkey so they can get another one off when the goblins give chase.
This is fun. A player trying to cheese me is not fun and not the type of fiction My game exists in. The same goes for the pole arm master folks. Feats and feature do not always work. The DM decides.