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

[Gimul]

Please cite the "peeking is allowed" rule.

Please cite the "peeking is not allowed"

The preview article clearly stated attacking from range using naturally stealthy is allowed. The article continues to cap the power of the ability buy stating the obvious; that the power doesn't grant invisibility and you can't just walk up to someone and maintain stealth with zero cover or concealment.

 

[Branduil]

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.

Show me in the rules where it differentiates between a hidden attacker attacking with concealment/invisibility or a hidden attacker attacking from around cover.

 

[fjw70]

The rules absolutely allow you to peek out of cover.

Please cite the rules that allows you to stay hidden when peeking?

If they did not, hiding would require total cover, full concealment, or invisibility; which it does not.

It does require that you not be seen.

If you don't like the naturally stealthy ability, just say you dislike it and house rule.

I like it just fine and since it works with obscurement and not cover then you can attack while hidden.

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).

Not ever, just when they can be seen. You can certainly do a peek attack if the DM rules the target is distracted but the rules don't automatically give you any amount of time remain hidden after you reveal yourself.

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.

Cover and obscurement are different things. I can be obscured by darkness and see you standing in the light but if I am behind a wall where you can't see me then I certainly and see and directly attack you.

 

[fjw70]

Show me in the rules where it differentiates between a hidden attacker attacking with concealment/invisibility or a hidden attacker attacking from around cover.

The rules say you must be unseen to be hidden. If you are hidden with obscurement or invisibility then you don't have to reveal yourself to attack.

If you are peeking around a corner to see the target you are visible to him as well, unless the DM rules otherwise.

 

[Mistwell]

Please help me draft a very concise, terse, but complete-enough question to ask Mike Mearls in twitter about this issue.

I know from experience here at EW going back to 2000 that his answer won't convince everyone, but it will help some people, so I think it's time we just asked him what he thinks.

 

[Bumamgar]

Lone tree: even if staring at the tree, the defender will not know which side you are going to pop out from, or if you are going to go high or low. You are unseen so he also doesn't get any blue as to WHEN the attack will come. All of that combines to provide advantage to the attacker. If you weren't behind the tree, the defender can see you raising the bow, drawing the string etc and prep for the attack.

 

[fjw70]

Lone tree: even if staring at the tree, the defender will not know which side you are going to pop out from, or if you are going to go high or low. You are unseen so he also doesn't get any blue as to WHEN the attack will come. All of that combines to provide advantage to the attacker. If you weren't behind the tree, the defender can see you raising the bow, drawing the string etc and prep for the attack.

He does get a clue of when and where the attack will come from by seeing the arrow aimed at him.

 

[Gimul]

Please cite the rules that allows you to stay hidden when peeking?





It does require that you not be seen.


Unseen does not mean it is impossible to see you (invisibility, total cover or total obscurement) it means they have failed to see you (non-total obscurement)


I like it just fine and since it works with obscurement and not cover then you can attack while hidden.

Obscurement does not mean you can not be seen; the ability to see you has been reduced ( at total obscurement, you can no longer be seen).







Not ever, just when they can be seen. You can certainly do a peek attack if the DM rules the target is distracted but the rules don't automatically give you any amount of time remain hidden after you reveal yourself.

Not can be seen. Are seen. There would be no stealth check necessary if they could not (ie 0%) be seen.



Cover and obscurement are different things. I can be obscured by darkness and see you standing in the light but if I am behind a wall where you can't see me then I certainly and see and directly attack you.

Cover and obscurement are different things, however unless your cover is a glass wall or similarly translucent barrier, it will grant obscurement as well. Also, see above for an example of how being obscured still allows for the possibility of being seen (short of total).

Also not that if totally obscured,while unseen, out also would not be able to see (short of magic, blindsight, darkvision, etc.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Lone tree: even if staring at the tree, the defender will not know which side you are going to pop out from, or if you are going to go high or low. You are unseen so he also doesn't get any blue as to WHEN the attack will come. All of that combines to provide advantage to the attacker. If you weren't behind the tree, the defender can see you raising the bow, drawing the string etc and prep for the attack.

But if he's staring at the tree when you pop out... you're seen. End of Hiding. No Advantage.

 

[Gimul]

Apologies, my last post didn't split out as intended, most of the responses were inline, inside the quoted section.