D&D 5E Halfling rogue sniping from the the second rank

[Mistwell]

Invisibility is a weird case for this discussion. Mechanically, the only reason to Hide while invisible is to get away, which implies movement. You already attack with advantage, so hiding doesn't add anything combat-wise.

What? You seriously cannot think of any reason why you would hide while invisible, other than for attacking?

That said... yes, absolutely, in my game you'd have to move to take the Hide action if you position as been revealed, for it to have any narratively meaningful result.

OK, but that's clearly a house rule. We know the rule on Invisibility - you don't need to move to hide again while invisible, and that specific rule automatically trumps the general hiding rules.

Otherwise, what happens? The creature has to make a Perception check to attack the spot where it already noticed you and thinks you are still?

Yes. Because you might have moved (even if just within the square), and it cannot be sure where you are. It can attack a 5-foot area anyway, but it can always do that whether or not you are there.

I'm not saying you'd have to move across the room... just not be in the same place you were, even if it's just a side-step. In fact, that's the most logical action, to get the attacker focused on the wrong space, which is again, why invisibility is a weird case (Even in the rules it mentions "signs of it's passage" when talking about hiding and invisibility.)

You occupy a 5 foot square, but you are not actually five feet wide. There is plenty of space within that five feet of area to move around. Hence, you need to spot someone.

I wouldn't call that a "great" example, unless you meant to prove my point

It was a great example, as for me the halfling is the equivalent of invisible when behind a larger creature. It's their special ability.

To me "Hide" implies to conceal your actual location from the enemy, which you simply can't do if they know where you are and you stay there. You have to be somewhere else, which takes movement if you've already been discovered. You get advantage when you're attacking from where they don't expect you, like if you climbed up or slunk into the tall grass when you were out of sight behind the tree.

And all that sounds like a house rule to me.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Quick question for those more read up on the basic rules. Can you attempt to hide after you've made your attack? Or does it basically require your "standard" action (I'm not sure what terminology is used to track actions in 5e)?

Usually takes your "action" which is the old standard action. But rogues and goblins can hide as a "bonus action" in addition to taking their normal action, which is how the peek a boo issue arises.

 

[Hjorimir]

Usually takes your "action" which is the old standard action. But rogues and goblins can hide as a "bonus action" in addition to taking their normal action, which is how the peek a boo issue arises.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Joe Liker]

I think what people aren't getting that there are two possible states in combat. Either a creature knows your position, or you're hidden from it. There isn't another possibility. This has nothing to do with whether you can be seen or not, except that, under most circumstances, in order to become hidden, you have to be out of the target's sight.

I disagree. You can be hidden even if a creature knows your position. There is nothing in the rules to support the false dichotomy you are asserting.

In particular, I think you can hide from the spider even though it knows your position. For example, if there were a big rock or cocoon in the web, you could hide behind it. The spider would still know exactly where you are, but you could reasonably execute a ranged attack with advantage.

 

[Hjorimir]

I disagree. You can be hidden even if a creature knows your position. There is nothing in the rules to support the false dichotomy you are asserting.

In particular, I think you can hide from the spider even though it knows your position. For example, if there were a big rock or cocoon in the web, you could hide behind it. The spider would still know exactly where you are, but you could reasonably execute a ranged attack with advantage.

Not 100% sure I agree (also, not 100% sure I disagree, to be fair). It feels like the advantage gained from attacking while hidden stems from the fact that the target isn't actively defending itself from that attack. If a target creature is aware of an opponent's position, I think they could probably keep up an active defense.

 

[Joe Liker]

Not 100% sure I agree (also, not 100% sure I disagree, to be fair). It feels like the advantage gained from attacking while hidden stems from the fact that the target isn't actively defending itself from that attack. If a target creature is aware of an opponent's position, I think they could probably keep up an active defense.

Again, that's not what hiding is about. It's not about enemy knowledge of your presence or position. It's about you being out of sight, nothing more, and (usually) nothing less. If you are a lightfoot halfling, it's about you being mostly out of sight.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

As these illustrate, your position -- and enemy knowledge of your position -- are entirely irrelevant to hiding. Hiding isn't about that. The rules do not care one bit whether the enemy is aware of you. That's a totally different, unrelated concept, dealt with in the metagame sense by the DM and his understanding of what the creatures know and perceive.

I disagree with this. The rules specifically state:

You can't hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a working or knocking over a vase) you give away your position.​

First, if the rules "do not care one bit whether the enemy is aware of you" then they wouldn't specifically mention that in the rules.

If knowing your position didn't negate your ability to attempt to hide, then it wouldn't be appended with "and" to the same sentence that starts with "You can't hide."

Furthermore, the second sentence of the hiding rules state "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding...".

In other words, being discovered = knowing where you are = knowing your position = not hiding.

That's the whole point, you aren't hidden if the opponent knows where you are.

And before the discussion veers back into 'you still have advantage to attack when invisible even when they know where you are' - You have advantage when you are invisible because you are invisible, not because you are hidden.

Randy

 

[doctorhook]

If I'm reading the rules correctly, this tactic that the halfling rogue in my party has been using is legal. Basically, he uses his cunning action to hide behind one of the human characters and then attacks with advantage (with -2 for cover) and sneak attacks with his bow. I'm not complaining that is broken, but I just want to make sure that the interpretation is correct.

Apologies if someone has mentioned this, because I haven't read the entire thread. Why would the rogue take a -2 penalty for cover? The Halfling rogue is shooting from cover (behind his Medium-sized ally), but that doesn't (shouldn't?) count as cover for his target, does it?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Apologies if someone has mentioned this, because I haven't read the entire thread. Why would the rogue take a -2 penalty for cover? The Halfling rogue is shooting from cover (behind his Medium-sized ally), but that doesn't (shouldn't?) count as cover for his target, does it?

He wouldn't. Cover grants a bonus to AC, not a penalty to attack. In addition, hiding behind something doesn't penalize attacks at all. It simply causes the rogue to no longer be hidden once he chooses to attack.

Randy

 

[Warbringer]

Apologies if someone has mentioned this, because I haven't read the entire thread. Why would the rogue take a -2 penalty for cover? The Halfling rogue is shooting from cover (behind his Medium-sized ally), but that doesn't (shouldn't?) count as cover for his target, does it?

Firing into melee, -2