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

[Mort]

Surprise.

Yes that's right. But to get surprise you must generate a scenario where the opponent does not detect you. You are unseen and unheard until you attack or there is no surprise. I think that bolsters the argument for getting advantage for the initial undetected attack not detracts from it.

 

[fjw70]

Yes that's right. But to get surprise you must generate a scenario where the opponent does not detect you. You are unseen and unheard until you attack or there is no surprise. I think that bolsters the argument for getting advantage for the initial undetected attack not detracts from it.

No surprse means you are not detected before the round starts.

 

[ammulder]

I guess it's now clear that the rules can be read either way.

I would grant advantage when firing from behind hard cover. The "realism" justification being, you're revealing yourself and attacking all in short order, and it is quick enough that the opponent hasn't had time to become aware of you and adjust their position or defensive stance before the attack happens. After the attack goes off, you're exposed, everyone adjusts accordingly and the advantage is gone. I would not allow the rogue to re-hide behind a pillar, but probably would if it was a long, low wall and they had movement available such that the opponent had some uncertainty as to which position they would take afterward.

I'd have to think about Skulker and a pillar. Could you reasonably claim to still be unseen after a miss? That one seems very situation-dependent (friends in melee or whatever).

 

[ThePolarBear]

1) 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.

2) 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?

3) 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.

Numbers added for clarity.

1) Yes, you do not give away your position until you have attacked. But only if you are still hidden before the attack. If you are seen before the attack you lose your "hidden" status immediatly. Before the attack.

That's why there's a big difference between theater of the mind and grid. TotM : A player might say "i just lean out of cover with my bow and fire". This, if the DM allows, would be perfectly fine as an example of "shooting from cover" from point 2. You still have cover, just no longer total cover. You still are not "clearly visible" and can stay hidden. On a grid this thing is not possible if your cover gives total cover to your target too. You have to move out of cover,possibly blowing your "cover" (terrible puns are terrible) and be seen. No hiding bonus. You might play around the grid and see if there's a place where you could have 3/4 cover and LOS or whatever. You just can't step out in the open and make an attack while retaining the bonus.

2) You are not directly targettable and people have to assume where you are. If combat is not already ongoing as fjw70 said you might have the benefit of surprising your foes. If it's already ongoing and cover is big enough or there are zones of darkness around, you might be able to get away. If there's only a pillar or something you still have all the advantages of being hidden... the place is just not the best for hiding, so prehaps your action might be spent in better ways than hiding. If you really want to hide do not be surprised if someone comes round the corner on their turn and see that you are actually still there since there's no other place to run to. Instead of hiding you might have drunk a potion.

3) The baseline is RAW. Not always the strongest baseline ever, i'll admit. Yeah, i'm looking at you Freedom of Movement. Usually in this discussions at least one side talks about RAI. And best RAI is what works for your table, even if that is going backwards on what RAW tells you to do. This is expecially true on hiding, where the rules are actually MEANT to be left in the air. We can discuss all the time on the parts that are RAW, but even RAW has a limit. See the requirement for hiding having been changed from "not seen" to "not seen clearly". What the freckles does "clearly" even mean? Before it was clear cut. Now it's wishy washy DM stuff. We can discuss how the first point of Skulker gets invalidated if your master allows to hide in dim light since "you can't be seen clearly", or how heavy rain allows a human to hide in spite of Wood Elves racials since the DM says "you can't be seen clearly". Point is... that is the rule. And that's why i have to try and check all my posts on the subjects for any "might" that i might have missed, since there's always going to be a corner case.

 

[transtemporal]

I'd have to think about Skulker and a pillar. Could you reasonably claim to still be unseen after a miss?

Absolutely. Duck out, snapshot, duck back. Or just lie there in your gillie suit, sniping.

 

[Flamestrike]

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?

Yes because in this case, the Rogue was never hidden. His Stealth check failed to beat the passive perception of his target.

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

The answer is you dont have to. The rules allow a hidden creature to make an attack from hiding (leaning around the tree or pillar and making an unexpected attack) all in one go. You don't reveal yourself until after the attack is resolved.

If it helps, think of the 'popping out' and shooting happening all at once.

Sage advice confirms here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/15...e-no-longer-hidden-is-that-2-conditions-or-1/

If you approach and atck you are no longer hidden. Is that 2 conditions or 1? A hiding bowman still gets adv?

@JeremyECrawford yes, bowman is hidden, melee attacker isn't unless he can keep hidden during approach

​

And here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/

Rogue Hides behind tree. Ogre can't see him. Leans out, shoots ogre, returns. Advantage on attack? Sneak attack? Same next turn?

@mikemearls I would say advantage on attack, disadvantage on check to hide again

If you stepped out from behind cover and started a conversation with your target before shooting him, you are no longer hidden. If you shoot him from your hiding spot, you are hidden right up until the attack is resolved (with advantage). Once resolved you are no longer hidden (hit or miss).

Just like you can keep an eye on someone from behind a pillar, or around a corner of an intersection or behind a tree, peeking out and remaining hidden.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'd have to think about Skulker and a pillar. Could you reasonably claim to still be unseen after a miss? That one seems very situation-dependent (friends in melee or whatever).

A skulker shooting from behind a pillar (and missing) remains hidden.

You (the target) might suddenly hear a twang from somewhere, and notice a crossbow bolt sticking out of your shield, or hear it whizzing past your ear, but you cant tell where it came from.

 

[Flamestrike]

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?

The 'popping out' and the attack are happening at the same time. You retain the benefit of being hidden long enough to gain advantage on an attack. One resolved, you're no longer hidden.

Its a different case if you have to move 30' from your position of hiding to your target, giving him enough time to notice you running at him, recover his senses and defend normally.

Imagine a PC hiding behind a pillar in the middle of a large room, keeping tabs on that room by peeking around the pillar. An Ogre walks into the room. The DM compares the Stealth check result of the PC to the Ogres passive perception. If the Ogre wins it sees the PC peeking around the corner (and maybe quickly ducking his head back around!) or notices the PCs shadow or hears him or whatever. If it fails, it doesn't notice him and remains completely unaware the PC is there.

Assuming the PC remains hidden and the Ogre fails to notice him, and the PC then wants to attack the Ogre, he can do so (in this case obtaining surprise). Initiative is rolled for the PC and the Ogre, and combat begins in turn order. On the first round, the Ogre misses his 1st turn (he's surprised) regardless of if he wins initiative or not. On the PCs first turn he gets to shoot the Ogre from behind the pillar, gaining advantage on the attack roll. After that attack is resolved (hit or miss) the PC is no longer hidden.

Its up to the DM now if the PC can attempt to duck back around the pillar and Hide. In this case I would rule he couldn't (its just him and the Ogre, the latter of whom is aware of him and watching him now, foiling any attempt to Hide behind the one pillar in the room).

If the PC had the Skulker feat and missed on that 1st turn, its simply narrated as a crossbow bolt whizzing past the ear of a very startled and confused Ogre.

In this case, you can bet the Ogre is going to start sniffing the air and looking around for whomever fired that crossbow bolt at him (take the Search action).

 

[fjw70]

Yes because in this case, the Rogue was never hidden. His Stealth check failed to beat the passive perception of his target.



The answer is you dont have to. The rules allow a hidden creature to make an attack from hiding (leaning around the tree or pillar and making an unexpected attack) all in one go. You don't reveal yourself until after the attack is resolved.

If it helps, think of the 'popping out' and shooting happening all at once.

Sage advice confirms here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/15...e-no-longer-hidden-is-that-2-conditions-or-1/

If you approach and atck you are no longer hidden. Is that 2 conditions or 1? A hiding bowman still gets adv?

@JeremyECrawford yes, bowman is hidden, melee attacker isn't unless he can keep hidden during approach

​

And here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/

Rogue Hides behind tree. Ogre can't see him. Leans out, shoots ogre, returns. Advantage on attack? Sneak attack? Same next turn?

@mikemearls I would say advantage on attack, disadvantage on check to hide again

If you stepped out from behind cover and started a conversation with your target before shooting him, you are no longer hidden. If you shoot him from your hiding spot, you are hidden right up until the attack is resolved (with advantage). Once resolved you are no longer hidden (hit or miss).

Just like you can keep an eye on someone from behind a pillar, or around a corner of an intersection or behind a tree, peeking out and remaining hidden.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.

Lets go back to my example. You walk towards a pillar. I lean out from behind the pillar and point a bow at you. I have revealed myself whether I attack or not. I am not hidden any longer. No rule allows you to have a simultaneous reveal and attack. Now if I attack (same round) I am no longer attacking from a hidden position.

In your Sage advice Mearls is giving you his situational ruling. No where does be say it is RAW. Just like the disadvantage to re-hide. A situational ruling, not RAW.

 

[ammulder]

A skulker shooting from behind a pillar (and missing) remains hidden.

You (the target) might suddenly hear a twang from somewhere, and notice a crossbow bolt sticking out of your shield, or hear it whizzing past your ear, but you cant tell where it came from.

I agree that that's RAW. And it's a reasonable interpretation, but to me it's more situation-dependent. If a normal person walks into a normal, lit room with 4 or 5 pillars and thunk, a crossbow bolt lands in his shield, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't notice someone who fired from behind one of those pillars. But put the victim in melee, and it's completely plausible.

I would still have given the hiding rogue advantage on the shot from behind the pillar; I just question whether the attack is too obvious to "skulk" (stay hidden after a missed shot). Maybe the right mechanic is to give the victim advantage on his perception roll if he walks into an otherwise empty and well-lit room, so the rogue has to be really on top of her game to be hidden in the first place (vs. no advantage if he walks into a room and a general combat breaks out or whatever)? But assuming the rogue is that well hidden (and has Skulker), then she gets advantage and doesn't reveal herself on a miss. That seems more like RAW all the way around.