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

[DND_Reborn]

IME sneak attack happens about 4 out of 5 attacks either via advantage or from an ally fighting the same foe. Not all the time, but enough. And frankly, when the nat 20 comes up, it really shines and is always available (unlike smiting for example, which can run out...).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a house rule, it's part of being a DM and deciding when you think advantage and disadvantage should be applied for things not called out in the rules.

Its also tertiary to what you first used it as a reply to.

The questions wasn't how to aply adv/disad. The questions was "does the default position make any sense?"

 

[Oofta]

Its also tertiary to what you first used it as a reply to.

The questions wasn't how to aply adv/disad. The questions was "does the default position make any sense?"

There can be more than one topic per thread.

As I've said multiple times I think rogues are balanced as long as they get sneak attack most of the time, they don't need advantage.

I also think that it's perfectly within the rules (and I don't care how you label it) that most of the time someone will be at disadvantage to notice a stealthy rogue in combat.

Can you stop the harassment now?

 

[nogray]

Dodge certainly does stop SA from a hidden archer unless there is an ally within 5 feet of them. If you do not have advantage or an ally within 5 feet you don't get SA and dodge will cancel all advantages regardless of how many there are.

Rogue allies (or, more precisely, rogue-target-enemies) have nothing to do with the situation. If the rogue is hidden from the enemy, Dodge does nothing. It doesn't impose disadvantage on the rogue's attack because the Dodge action says:

"When you take the Dodge action, . . . any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, . . . ."

If you can't see the attacker (because they have successfully hidden from you or are otherwise unseen), the Dodge action does not impose disadvantage on the attacker, and the advantage gained from being an unseen attacker is not canceled. The unseen attacker has advantage and, absent some source of disadvantage besides the ineffectual dodge action, has nothing to counter that. Attacking with advantage (whilst armed with a ranged or finesse weapon) means happy-sneak-attack-y rogue.

There are, as you said, usually ways to stop sneak attacks, but in the case of a hidden sniping rogue, the only options are to make the rogue no longer hidden or find a way to impose disadvantage on their attack with something other than dodge. Dropping prone would work, but with its own costs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There can be more than one topic per thread.

As I've said multiple times I think rogues are balanced as long as they get sneak attack most of the time, they don't need advantage.

I also think that it's perfectly within the rules (and I don't care how you label it) that most of the time someone will be at disadvantage to notice a stealthy rogue in combat.

Can you stop the harassment now?

LOL Harassment!?

Buddy, either report whatever posts you think show that I'm harassing you and move on (rather than continuing to engage and make arguments and then try to bully me into not replying to your arguments), or stop making absurd accusations and engage with actual arguments.

I can tell you from first hand experience, the mods don't view making the thread about your accusations of bad behavior instead of about the thread topic as a valid forum behavior. It's kindof annoying and backward that they see calling out bad behavior as innapropriate behavior itself, but it is what it is, and in this case...you're just using false accusations to try and bully me into silence, which ain't gonna happen.

 

[Oofta]

LOL Harassment!?

Buddy, either report whatever posts you think show that I'm harassing you and move on (rather than continuing to engage and make arguments and then try to bully me into not replying to your arguments), or stop making absurd accusations and engage with actual arguments.

I can tell you from first hand experience, the mods don't view making the thread about your accusations of bad behavior instead of about the thread topic as a valid forum behavior. It's kindof annoying and backward that they see calling out bad behavior as innapropriate behavior itself, but it is what it is, and in this case...you're just using false accusations to try and bully me into silence, which ain't gonna happen.

You continue to bring up the disadvantage thing. I wasn't replying to you in my last couple of posts, so why do you give a flying fig? It's a topic being discussed. It has nothing to do with you.

 

[auburn2]

Rogue allies (or, more precisely, rogue-target-enemies) have nothing to do with the situation. If the rogue is hidden from the enemy, Dodge does nothing. It doesn't impose disadvantage on the rogue's attack because the Dodge action says:

"When you take the Dodge action, . . . any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, . . . ."

If you can't see the attacker (because they have successfully hidden from you or are otherwise unseen), the Dodge action does not impose disadvantage on the attacker, and the advantage gained from being an unseen attacker is not canceled. The unseen attacker has advantage and, absent some source of disadvantage besides the ineffectual dodge action, has nothing to counter that. Attacking with advantage (whilst armed with a ranged or finesse weapon) means happy-sneak-attack-y rogue.

There are, as you said, usually ways to stop sneak attacks, but in the case of a hidden sniping rogue, the only options are to make the rogue no longer hidden or find a way to impose disadvantage on their attack with something other than dodge. Dropping prone would work, but with its own costs.

Well said. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Maxperson]

You continue to bring up the disadvantage thing. I wasn't replying to you in my last couple of posts, so why do you give a flying fig? It's a topic being discussed. It has nothing to do with you.

Sure, but it wasn't anywhere close to harassment.

 

[Flamestrike]

Taking double dash like you suggest would have put me well in front of anyone else in the party, made me the target of most of the enemies, and STILL would not have gotten me sneak attack, because I would not have had advantage on the attack, or any ally close enough to trigger it.

1) You're a Rogue capable of moving 60' a round using your bonus action alone. Anyone foolish enough to try and get close to you gets shot in the face and fails.

2) You do have a way to get advantage. Bonus action Hide. Unless this 300' engagement was a flat desert somewhere, there should have been ample places to hide.

Your example kind of seems to be 'Well my Rogue once had an encounter on an open field with nowhere to hide/ where I choose not to Hide, at a range of over 300 feet, and was using a weapon with which he was not proficient, and I didnt try to get sneak attack or kite my targets, so that's why rogues dont get sneak attack all the time'

I think the reason you didnt get much sneak attack in that encounter is due to other reasons.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but it wasn't anywhere close to harassment.

Meh. I'm not too worried about the phrase police. Maybe hectoring, hassling, harrying? May not have been the correct word, if I though it was a big deal I would have simply reported it and not responded.