D&D 5E Moving out of concealment to attack - when is stealth broken?

[Rabulias]

That’s not really stealth though.

It was more to demonstrate impaired Perception and that something could be in plain view and people could still fail a Wisdom (Perception) check if they are focused on something else (like combat).

 

[Reynard]

No, the relevant rule is that by default, a creature in combat is aware of their surroundings, which is nonsense. It takes effort, active focus, and usually training, to be aware of your surroundings in a fight. The default is exactly opposite reality.

I think you might do well to watch any team sport in action. People whose job it is to be cognizant of their surroundings as people move with dangerous purpose around them have a pretty good sense of where everyone is. Do folks sometimes get blindsided? Sure. But that is what the GM is for in this situation.

If I had to make a rule for it, i would say this: characters engaged in melee have a choice as to whether to take disadvantage on their perception checks versus incoming "blindside" attacks, or to suffer disadvantage to their own attacks. It actually models quarterbacks trying to survive in the pocket pretty well. You could flip it too, if you wanted.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you might do well to watch any team sport in action. People whose job it is to be cognizant of their surroundings as people move with dangerous purpose around them have a pretty good sense of where everyone is. Do folks sometimes get blindsided? Sure. But that is what the GM is for in this situation.

If I had to make a rule for it, i would say this: characters engaged in melee have a choice as to whether to take disadvantage on their perception checks versus incoming "blindside" attacks, or to suffer disadvantage to their own attacks. It actually models quarterbacks trying to survive in the pocket pretty well. You could flip it too, if you wanted.

That would be a reasonable and believable rule, yeah. And it’s dead simple.

I’m gonna put it to my group, maybe try it out.

 

[Flamestrike]

The game has two options - either implement a complex 'facing' rule or simply leave it down to DM discretion when a monster is aware of its entire surroundings (defaulting to a general awareness of your surroundings in the absence of the DM choosing to exercise that discretion).

Once you accept that as the case, it then just becomes a question for the DM of when to exercise that discretion.

As a general rule the creature is assumed to be aware of you when you leave your hiding spot, but if the creature is engaged in a swirling melee with 2 of your buddies on the other side of where you are, it's more than likely the creature is looking at them (and not in your general area) and you can approach the creature while remaining hidden.

It's a question of common sense and DM discretion really.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The game has two options - either implement a complex 'facing' rule or simply leave it down to DM discretion when a monster is aware of its entire surroundings (defaulting to a general awareness of your surroundings in the absence of the DM choosing to exercise that discretion).

Nope. The game can easily implement non-complex facing rules (you are facing the last person you attacked unless you state otherwise), and/different defaults (you’re aware of creatures that aren’t trying to avoid your notice within 60ft, who aren’t under any concealment).

 

[jgsugden]

Nope. The game can easily implement non-complex facing rules (you are facing the last person you attacked unless you state otherwise), and/different defaults (you’re aware of creatures that aren’t trying to avoid your notice within 60ft, who aren’t under any concealment).

Facing rules in D&D don't make sense. A round is 6 seconds. When you implement facing rules, you end up facing in one direction for almost that entire time despite the fact that you're engaged in combat and moving around during that round.

 

[Mistwell]

Rogues shouldn't try and hide in battle.

Uh, it's kinda specifically their thing, with a special power built-in to the class just for that, and highlighted by the creator of the rules as something they are definitely intended to do.

 

[Maxperson]

I think your concerns are a bit... exaggerated.

The PHB (p177) says:

I certainly don't read that as "360 degree field of vision at all times". Does anyone?

Right. It only says that you have 360 vision at almost all times. All times was an exaggeration. It's still a ridiculous idea. Someone who has his focus that scattered in combat also has his brains scattered in the same combat.

 

[Li Shenron]

If Rogues were supposed to Sneak Attack every round, then Sneak Attack would have been written without any advantage requirement.

 

[Flamestrike]

Nope. The game can easily implement non-complex facing rules (you are facing the last person you attacked unless you state otherwise)

Requiring the DM to track the last creature each monster attacked, each turn, for every monster in each encounter.

That extra level of book-keeping is not worth the pay off, when it can be simply handled with a case by case ruling.

 

[Flamestrike]

If Rogues were supposed to Sneak Attack every round, then Sneak Attack would have been written without any advantage requirement.

Mate, it's clear from the DPR comparisons between the classes that Rogues are expected to obtain SA each round.

All you have to do is attack a creature near an ally, Hide (which you can do as a bonus action) or (thanks to Tashas) simply not move and Aim first.

Swashbucklers also get SA when mano-a-mano. Investigators can also stink-eye someone with Insightful fighting. And so forth.

If your Rogue is not getting SA damage in 95 percent of the times they're rolling damage, you're not Rogueing correctly.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mate, it's clear from the DPR comparisons between the classes that Rogues are expected to obtain SA each round.

All you have to do is attack a creature near an ally, Hide (which you can do as a bonus action) or (thanks to Tashas) simply not move and Aim first.

Swashbucklers also get SA when mano-a-mano. Investigators can also stink-eye someone with Insightful fighting. And so forth.

If your Rogue is not getting SA damage in 95 percent of the times they're rolling damage, you're not Rogueing correctly.

Not in the core game.

DPR analysis is rigged. Aim is an optional rule. Core rules are clear that that it is meant to be not all the the time, period. In fact, you talk yourself about 95%. Whether it "should" be 80, 95 or 99, that's not written in the rules and therefore there is no "should". Except that it cannot be 100% otherwise the rule would not require something that doesn't happen all the time.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm ... not. Just saying that if the DM thinks there should be disadvantage there is. The stealth rules are left vague so that the DM can make decisions that make sense in the moment.

The rule you are quoting regarding disadvantage is in the context of exceptions to rules. Special situations that come up where a rule doesn't cover that situation correctly or completely.

What you are proposing is an incorrect usage of the disadvantage rule. What is actually happening is that the combat rule is being completely re-written from, "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen." to "Combat is chaotic. You get disadvantage on perception checks to see a creature coming out of hiding."

That's a house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Not all at once, but over a turn yes. They are turning their head back and forth and scanning the battlefield a lot faster than someone walking could sneak up on them.

And that head just got bashed in and they are dead, because they weren't focusing on the guy trying to kill them.

 

[Maxperson]

I am in the Navy and I think of it like being on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier during flight operations. The flight deck is a dangerous environment. You have all kinds of threats, you can be blown overboard, sucked into an intake, chopped up by an E-2 propellor, walk off the flight deck and fall into the catwalk .... There is a term we use "keep your head on a swivel" because if you are paying too much attention and concentrating on that Hornet that is turning and about to blast you with his jet exhaust you are going to miss the other Hornet that is about to run you over. So that is what you are doing - while you are doing whatever your job is you are at the same time constantly scanning 360 degrees for other "threats". This is a trained behavior, not a natural one.

We are not talking about a duel or gladiator arena, and as such, I would imagine trained fighters in combat are going to do the same thing, constantly search for new threats.

Okay. Next time someone with a knife is trying to kill you, you swivel your head around like that, taking the time to watch everything around you. Just be sure to let your next of kin know to contact us to tell us how it worked out for you.

 

[Flamestrike]

Not in the core game.

Yes in the core game.

The devs made it so the conditions for Sneak Attack are easily attainable in the overwhelming majority of cases; via simply having an adjacent ally which thanks to bonus action disengaging being baked into the Rogue class is trivially easy to get or via advantage to an attack roll (or insightful fighting, or swashbuckler mano-a-mano etc) the latter of which is trivially easy to get via bonus action hiding (also baked into the Rogue class).

That is a deliberate design choice. It's the devs method of saying' you should be getting SA damage most rounds. Exceptions should be rare'.

Which is backed up by DPR comparison charts.

And is exactly how the game actually plays.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes in the core game.

The devs made it so the conditions for Sneak Attack are easily attainable in the overwhelming majority of cases; via simply having an adjacent ally which thanks to bonus action disengaging being baked into the Rogue class is trivially easy to get or via advantage to an attack roll (or insightful fighting, or swashbuckler mano-a-mano etc) the latter of which is trivially easy to get via bonus action hiding (also baked into the Rogue class).

That is a deliberate design choice. It's the devs method of saying' you should be getting SA damage most rounds. Exceptions should be rare'.

Which is backed up by DPR comparison charts.

And is exactly how the game actually plays.

And that means we should make it even easier? No.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not in the core game.

DPR analysis is rigged. Aim is an optional rule. Core rules are clear that that it is meant to be not all the the time, period. In fact, you talk yourself about 95%. Whether it "should" be 80, 95 or 99, that's not written in the rules and therefore there is no "should". Except that it cannot be 100% otherwise the rule would not require something that doesn't happen all the time.

The designers of the game have said the intention is for the rogue to have SA in basically every round of combat.

 

[auburn2]

And that head just got bashed in and they are dead, because they weren't focusing on the guy trying to kill them.

If you focus on one guy while many are trying to kill you, then are going to be dead a lot quicker. Sorry I don't buy this and I think you contradict yourself here.

The whole premise of your argument is the guy is not paying attention to the main threat - i.e. the Rogue that is trying to sneak attack him. He is distracted by something that is less of a threat, but if trains himself not to be distracted by this lesser threat and remain vigilant for the main threat he is going to die quicker?

 

[auburn2]

The designers of the game have said the intention is for the rogue to have SA in basically every round of combat.

That is different than getting advantage from hiding every round.