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

[TDarien]

Interpreting peeking out of cover as approaching a creature feels like a mangling of the word to me.

That's just it. The rules don't technically allow you to "peek out" of cover.

"A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." (pg. 74). This means you can't see it, and therefore it can't see you from its current position, and therefore can't attack because you also have total cover from it. ("A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell").
In order to see it, you'll need to physically move out of total cover. Now you could certainly move only a foot, giving you 3/4 cover from the target (and since you're against the cover, it wouldn't have cover from you, unless it was also against it on the other side --my call as a DM). At that point you're visible, and would lose the benefit of hiding.

Now. Under most circumstances I would allow you to retain the advantage of being hidden, but that is 100% my call as a DM. You could then make your attack with advantage, and move back into total cover. But you were visible for a second, and if,say, a creature was specifically looking for you to come out of cover (i.e. readied an action to attack you if you appeared), it would be able to react to that.

 

[fjw70]

As noted by Brennen, all the rules say on this is that "if you come out of hiding and approach the creature, it probably sees you." Line of sight is conspicuously absent from the Basic Rules in any context.

So technically, "peeking out" doesn't end your hidden state unless you approach the creature, and then only probably.

You can't attempt to hide again if they can see you, but that's a different thing.

I have a feeling that the designers left this vague so the DM can rule whatever seems logical at the moment, and also to avoid any exploitation by players who like to quote rules. As such, I'm actually somewhat pessimistic about any clarification ever appearing.

In the end, the middle ground is probably the most in following with the spirit of the rules.

The approaching the creature statement was just an example of how you can remain unseen after revealing your self. There are other ways you can reveal yourself too.

Using your line if reasoning you can come out of cover, move 15 feet away from the target, wait a round, and then attack with advantage. You haven't approached the target so you must still be hidden. Right?

Of course not, because approaching the target isn't the trigger to end hiding. The trigger is being seen.

 

[YourSwordIsMine]

[video=youtube_share;NWgverI7m5s]http://youtu.be/NWgverI7m5s[/video]

 

[fjw70]

"Peeking" to attack does not break the hide until after the attack; walking out to attack from melee would break the hide before the attack.

Please cite the "peeking is allowed" rule.

 

[Branduil]

Please cite where the rules say you can reveal yourself by peeking and be able to attack before they notice you (without a DM ruling that the target is distracted).

The rules do not automatically give you X amount of time after revealing yourself to take an action. All it says is that the DM CAN allow you to attack if the target is distracted.

Basic Rules, page 73, Unseen Attackers and Targets: "If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your position when the attack hits or misses."

 

[Gimul]

The rules absolutely allow you to peek out of cover. If they did not, hiding would require total cover, full concealment, or invisibility; which it does not. Otherwise, attacking while hidden would require invisibility or a combination akin to total obscurement and blindsight; which would be ridiculous.

If you don't like the naturally stealthy ability, just say you dislike it and house rule. The absurd attempt at rules lawyering some are attempting would prevent all rogues from attacking from stealth basically ever (or at least without a pet mage or powerful magic item).

You cannot (without house rule) apply this line of reasoning to only naturally stealthy, you must apply it to all rogues. Meaning attack from the thickets in the starter example, would not grant advantage; which it is clearly intended to do.

 

[Joe Liker]

Using your line if reasoning you can come out of cover, move 15 feet away from the target, wait a round, and then attack with advantage. You haven't approached the target so you must still be hidden. Right?

Not must, but certainly might. It depends on whether the creature has had a reason to look your way.

Even in combat, if you are sneaking up behind an archer who is focused on a battle in the other direction, you might easily get close enough to sneak attack with advantage. Especially if he was never aware of your presence in the combat.

I think this is well within the guidelines of Stealth as written.

 

[fjw70]

Basic Rules, page 73, Unseen Attackers and Targets: "If you are hidden-both unseen and unheard-when you make an attack, you give away your position when the attack hits or misses."

It says IF you are hidden when making an attack. You can attack while hidden if you are invisible or obscured but nothing in that quote overrides the no direct attacks part of total cover.

 

[Ranes]

Isn't the problem here that the fact there there is a debate at all is indicative of the rule being a tad silly in the first place? I'm an average height human male but someone three feet tall (or thereabouts) standing behind me would not be hidden from view from anyone standing five or even ten feet away from me unless neither I nor the person behind me was moving at all and, further, that I and the person behind me were standing with our legs together, at a minimum. Sure, give the short person skulking behind me a cover bonus but a hiding bonus? Someone upthread mentioned peekaboo and I think that sums up how ill-considered this idea is.

No, it's not the end of the world. I do think the OP seems to be interpreting the rule correctly and I have no axe to grind with 5e. I'm liking it a lot. But this rule in particular? Nothing said so far seems to justify it to me.

Edit: all right, maybe not human but medium, in D&D terms.

 

[fjw70]

Not must, but certainly might. It depends on whether the creature has had a reason to look your way.

Even in combat, if you are sneaking up behind an archer who is focused on a battle in the other direction, you might easily get close enough to sneak attack with advantage. Especially if he was never aware of your presence in the combat.

I think this is well within the guidelines of Stealth as written.

"Might" is the key. It requires a DM ruling to say they don't see you when you are in a space that normally can be seen. That's the key difference between hiding with total cover and hiding with obscurement or invisibility.