D&D 5E DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

[nswanson27]

I believe I run the stealth system the same as you; however your statement #2 is a bit confusing. If the rogue has a stealth check of 10 and the NPC has a passive perception of 11, then is the NPC aware of the rogue's location? In my game, the rogue needs to exceed the perception (visual and audio) of the NPCs to be considered hidden. I allow the rogue to hide around the corner if the NPC is distracted with another PC in combat or similar interaction that requires a decent amount of attention. It's assumed the rogue gives the impression that it is leaving the area and thus the NPC will no longer consider the rogue to be a threat as long as the rogue's hide check exceeds the passive perception of the NPC. This trick is allowed to work once per combat.

For me, an enemy can have an awareness of a rogues location all it wants - just like a party can be aware of the location of an invisible enemy. The party is still getting disadvantage on all attacks. I don't find this to be a problem. If it's just a rogue (solo) vs. enemy, then the enemy isn't just going to sit there and get shot indefinitely. They will either close in or get hidden themselves. If the rogue's target is also being engaged by the barbarian, then there's plenty of justification for that enemy to be "distracted" by the greataxe coming for their skull.
For your case, a passive higher than stealth roll means they get spotted as they pop out, otherwise not.
You know, I think this would all be clearer if they made the stealth roll to be part of the sneak attack (the popping out of cover part). As it is, it's a "forward-looking" ability check. Now, if there was some effort by the enemy to be watching for the rogue's attack (readied action or active perception check while closing in), then I would probably give disadvantage on the rogue's stealth check.

 

[fjw70]

The rules state (PH 195): When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attacks against it. If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.


Is the confusion perhaps the use of "pop out"?

I don't think anyone is saying you can reveal yourself, have the target see you and then attack with advantage. You attack with advantage because you are hidden and the act of attacking reveals you. "popping out" is just a colloquial way of saying you have revealed yourself when attacking - at least that's How I'm reading what is being said.

Is that clearer?

But when behind hard cover you have to show yourself to attack. How can you stay completely behind the cover and attack.

 

[iserith]

Yeah wasn't directing the realism bit at you - more of a general statement on this thread. Anyways, your ruling is your ruling - no problem with that.
Mine is:
1: If a rogue pops out a bit to shoot without having a successful stealth check, they are seen and thus lose advantage.
2: If a rogue pops out a bit to shoot with having a successful stealth check, they are NOT seen and thus have advantage. Just because they theoretically could be seen at that point (like with a higher passive perception) doesn't mean they necessarily are seen. The existence of Skulker feats rule logically implies this is RAI. (This where we differ.) After the shot, stealth is broken even if they duck back down and are only unseen at that point. If they successfully stealth again, then they are hidden again.
3: Popping out of cover to shoot has different mechanical implications and is different than stepping out of cover entirely to move or something. Namely, for point 2.

Interesting. At our table, the player describes that he or she wants the rogue to hide and how. I determine if it's possible (criteria: creature can't see or otherwise notice PC's presence) and, if it is, ask for a Dexterity (Stealth) check and compare it to the monster's passive Perception. If the check beats the passive score, the rogue is hidden, likely at the cost of a bonus action. If the rogue then attacks and can't be seen in the doing, then he or she gets advantage on the attack roll - hit or miss, the rogue is no longer hidden (except on a miss when the PC has the Skulker feat). If the rogue can be seen in the doing, the rogue is no longer hidden and does not get advantage on the attack roll.

My reading of the rules indicates that the rogue generally needs heavy obscurement by which he or she isn't impacted (such as having darkvision and firing at a target that does not have darkvision or has a lesser range e.g. drow vs. dwarf) to pull off an attack from hiding. This seems to me in line with the Skulker feat as well. Cover is generally going to cause the rogue to "pop out" and become seen and thus no longer hidden.

Question out of curiosity for those of you who disagree: Did you run or play D&D 4e?

 

[nswanson27]

Cover is generally going to cause the rogue to "pop out" and become seen and thus no longer hidden.

Question out of curiosity for those of you who disagree: Did you run or play D&D 4e?

I do not play 4e. I think our only difference is popping out doesn't automatically imply being seen for me, as there's effort on the part of a skilled rogue trying to be stealthy while doing this. Otherwise, being hidden is mechanically moot. I could see an argument for, say, disadvantage on repeated attempts at the same location without any allies cause distractions. But there must be something different about a rogue than a fighter archer shooting from cover.

 

[Mort]

But when behind hard cover you have to show yourself to attack. How can you stay completely behind the cover and attack.

You start your attack from behind cover - that's all that is required by RAW.

There is murkiness here - by RAW, if you take a move action before you attack - you are no longer hidden (unless you stealth the move? so they move past you you 1/2 move to remain silent, requiring another check, and are still "hidden" - that is not exactly clear by RAW). This is a bit ambiguous - especially since I believe 5e has no charge action (move as part of the attack).

On the other hand if you just use the attack action to attack from behind the cover (you hide behind a pillar, when they move past the pillar or adjacent to it within your reach, for example) there is no ambiguity - you get advantage but reveal your position.

 

[fjw70]

Nothing in the rules allow you to start an attack behind cover then finish it after a pop out.

 

[Mort]

Nothing in the rules allow you to start an attack behind cover then finish it after a pop out.

How else can you interpret "... If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Since you do not give away your position until the attack is resolved (hits or misses) you have advantage on the attack until then.

Again I can see the problem if you move (take a move action) first, but otherwise it seems completely clear.

 

[ThePolarBear]

How else can you interpret "... If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

Since you do not give away your position until the attack is resolved (hits or misses) you have advantage on the attack until then.

Again I can see the problem if you move (take a move action) first, but otherwise it seems completely clear.

Because there are situations - example: Heavy obscurement - that allow you to still be unseen after the attack has been resolved. Cover just might not be one of those cases. For me, it's usually not.

Edit: There's also a difference here if you use the Theater of Mind or a grid. On a grid, if the cover you are behind is big enough, you might have no way to fire at a target - the target would be fully covered too. To fire, you have to get out of cover - the target now could see you. You might be in plain sight. By the rules if you are in plain sight you are seen - no roll required.

Rulings > rules and at each table his own, always.

Edit 2: By the way... the rule specifies that you give away your position... not that you are no longer hidden. It gets even messier if we go into targeting by hearing and what not so please let's steer away from that discussion

Edit 3: added a "might"

 

[Mort]

Because there are situations - example: Heavy obscurement - that allow you to still be unseen after the attack has been resolved. Cover just might not be one of those cases. For me, it's usually not.

Sure, but since you don't give away position until the attack is resolved (whether you remain hidden afterwards or not) - IMO you get the benefits of cover for that attack.

Otherwise what's the point of waiting behind a wall and hitting them as they move by. What's the point of hiding until you attack?

As for rulings not rules - well yes, but it's always best to 1. establish a baseline and 2. try to make the rulings as clear, consistent and sensible as possible - hence the discussion.

 

[fjw70]

Otherwise what's the point of waiting behind a wall and hitting them as they move by. What's the point of hiding until you attack?

Surprise.