Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 6954680" data-attributes="member: 413">No.&nbsp; No one has said that.&nbsp; Not once anywhere in this thread.&nbsp; No one has made the claim that because a creature is &quot;hidden&quot; in an obvious place that an attacker can't guess where it is hidden and take a logical action to attack the hiding creature.If your target is &quot;hidden&quot;, you must guess at it's location.&nbsp; If there is no where else it can be, then it's a good bet it's in the box.&nbsp; Move to where you have LOS, if it is there, it is revealed and you can target it directly (no 'search' action necessary).&nbsp; If the box is providing total cover, it doesn't matter if the target is hidden.&nbsp; You can't attack it unless you move to where the box is not in the way (whether or not the target is &quot;hidden&quot; is irrelevant).&nbsp; If the box is flimsy, you can try to attack the &quot;hidden&quot; target through the box but you get disadvantage because you can't see the target (not because it is &quot;hidden&quot;...again, that state is irrelevant).&nbsp; So as they said in the movie 'Signs': &quot;Swing away.&quot;There are two schools here:&nbsp; One that says that the &quot;hidden&quot; state has nothing to do with the observer's ability to deduce the hider's location, only with the observer's ability to detect and track the hider's location directly through the observer's senses (see it, hear it, smell it, feel it).&nbsp; &nbsp; The other camp says that if the observer &quot;knows&quot; the hider's location (but can't hear or see or smell or tremorsense the hider) then the hider is not hidden.In either case, there is no difference in game mechanics EXCEPT for one (that I can think of):&nbsp; If the hider can attack the observer, he'll get advantage (and potentially SA damage if that feature is available) on his attack if he is &quot;hidden&quot;.&nbsp; The former camp says he can and is fine with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The latter camp says you don't get adv on the attack because the target &quot;knows&quot; you are there and it doesn't sit well with them to give it advantageBoth are reasonably valid.&nbsp; I'm more of the former because this situation will never or vary rarely come up in my game and it is usually PCs that are hiding (and I'm a &quot;Yes but&quot; kind of DM).&nbsp;&nbsp; In the chaos of combat I allow the attack/hide rogue routine to work once or twice and then the monsters go out of their way to counter it.&nbsp; If they can't counter it, then good for the rogue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Uller, post: 6954680, member: 413"] No. No one has said that. Not once anywhere in this thread. No one has made the claim that because a creature is "hidden" in an obvious place that an attacker can't guess where it is hidden and take a logical action to attack the hiding creature. If your target is "hidden", you must guess at it's location. If there is no where else it can be, then it's a good bet it's in the box. Move to where you have LOS, if it is there, it is revealed and you can target it directly (no 'search' action necessary). If the box is providing total cover, it doesn't matter if the target is hidden. You can't attack it unless you move to where the box is not in the way (whether or not the target is "hidden" is irrelevant). If the box is flimsy, you can try to attack the "hidden" target through the box but you get disadvantage because you can't see the target (not because it is "hidden"...again, that state is irrelevant). So as they said in the movie 'Signs': "Swing away." There are two schools here: One that says that the "hidden" state has nothing to do with the observer's ability to deduce the hider's location, only with the observer's ability to detect and track the hider's location directly through the observer's senses (see it, hear it, smell it, feel it). The other camp says that if the observer "knows" the hider's location (but can't hear or see or smell or tremorsense the hider) then the hider is not hidden. In either case, there is no difference in game mechanics EXCEPT for one (that I can think of): If the hider can attack the observer, he'll get advantage (and potentially SA damage if that feature is available) on his attack if he is "hidden". The former camp says he can and is fine with it. The latter camp says you don't get adv on the attack because the target "knows" you are there and it doesn't sit well with them to give it advantage Both are reasonably valid. I'm more of the former because this situation will never or vary rarely come up in my game and it is usually PCs that are hiding (and I'm a "Yes but" kind of DM). In the chaos of combat I allow the attack/hide rogue routine to work once or twice and then the monsters go out of their way to counter it. If they can't counter it, then good for the rogue. [/QUOTE]

Verification