D&D 5E Ranged attacks from behind a corner/an object

[Nailen]

I guess the basis of the arguement is people's interpretation of total cover. For me, you can't be in total cover and be able to know where enemy are to target them. For all you know, they have gone into cover themselves, or are advancing on your position...
I guess others can rule differently, and that doesn't matter to me because we don't play together.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using EN World mobile app

 

[robus]

I imagine what he means is that he's not charging any movement to the PC to lean out from behind the cover, shoot, and then lean back. The "lean, shoot, return to total cover" is all a part of the Attack action the PC is taking (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

That's why it's a 3). It's not "step out to shoot but now you have no cover" nor "lean out to shoot but now you only have 3/4 cover".

Personally, I rule the same way. PCs can hide behind stuff, pop up and shoot, then duck back down behind the cover again.

I think if you're attempting to assess the current state of the battlefield, aim and shoot all in one go then you can attack but it will be at disadvantage. It's a wild shot.

 

[jaelis]

I imagine what he means is that he's not charging any movement to the PC to lean out from behind the cover, shoot, and then lean back. The "lean, shoot, return to total cover" is all a part of the Attack action the PC is taking (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

OK but that is still saying you break cover during the attack, not that you are actually attacking through cover.

Whether breaking cover like that should expose your position is a different question.

 

[cooperjer]

Thanks for your responses! I figured out that there were two positions so far:

Let's say, I am playing a rogue that hides behind a corner. He gets Sneak Attack, because of the fact that he has the hidden condition that grants him Advantage (Advantage is one of the requirements for a Sneak Attack). The Rogue is a master of hiding, so he attacks and then uses his Bonus Action to hide again with his Cunning Action. He repeats that for several rounds.

So, I know there are a lot of people that say "NO! You can't hide twice behind the same place!". But I assume three things:

• a) If there is a place to hide only the dice decides whether or not a creature detects the rogue (no matter how often).
• b) The creature might know from where the attack/arrow/bolt came from, but it does not see the attacker. It doesn't see the Rogue reloading or aiming and in case of an object (e.g. a big barrel) it doesn't even know, if the Rogue is going to pop out from the left or right side. So it's obviously harder to defend against the rogue's further attacks than it would normally be.
• c) The rogue (and only the rogue) can "shoot and hide" within one round. He is a master of hiding like other classes can cast or do other cool stuff. That said, there should be some "general openness" for rogue tactics, as it is one of his main features.

What do you think about that?

Kind regards
Peter

As was indicated in prior posts, if a creature can be seen then it cannot hide. Therefore, if the DM decides a creature can be seen or perceived in some other way through blind sense, tremor sense, or some monsters ability to detect all other creatures in a certain radius, then it cannot hide. I should add, that in my opinion, if a player describes the hiding process to be cautious of the vibrations it makes then I'll let the character hide from tremor sense. Once the DM is clear there is a possibility of hiding then the player can roll a Dex (Stealth) ability check which is compared to the passive perception of the monsters.

I agree with your point (b). I feel this is a significant way the rogue can benefit from the sneak attack feature. If the rogue character were not allowed to act in this way, then the player may not enjoy the game as much. Player and DM experience may vary. Other DMs may not allow play this way.

Your point (c) is not restricted to rogues. A few other characters may hide and attack on the same turn. In general, any class that can make an attack as a bonus action (Sorcerer) or can take a second action on the same turn can hide and attack in the same turn. In a sorcerer case, they can cast Improved Invisibility. On the following turn they can cast a spell as a bonus action using meta magic and then use their action to hide. In a similar sense, a cleric could cast Healing Word and then use their action to hide.

 

[Li Shenron]

1.) Is it possible to hide behind an object/corner and make a ranged attack while being hidden?
2.) Do I have to step out for that or can I shoot while staying behind that object (e.g. by sticking to a wall/object and just peep around the edge of it).

Notice: If the answer concerning the 2nd question is "step out", attacks while hidden would no longer be possible with a Ready Action, because this would require movement.

Preliminary notes:

- hiding is always subject to the DM, who determines if there are conditions that makes hiding possible (see general hiding rules in PHB). So if the DM says you can't, don't argue

- do not mix up cover and concealment in the same examples

1) Generally yes, but keep in mind that
(a) the DM can say the conditions are such you don'teven get a chance
(b) you need a successful Dex check to hide, moving behind the object doesn't mean you are automatically hidden, not even if you move behind a corner (you cannot probably be targeted thre, but you're not hidden for the purpose of getting advantage unless you win the check)
(c) getting out of cover can be ruled as "stop hiding" and lose advantage; actually moving out and approach (move close to) your target for a melee attack is specifically mentioned in PHB as normally losing the hidden condition UNLESS the DM says otherwise
(d) even if you are granted advantage, after attacking you are not hidden anymore. It takes an action (bonus action if you're a 2nd level Rogue) and another successful Dex check to hide again

2) If the object is less than total cover you don't need to step out. If it's total cover yes, you need to step out, or at least give up total cover for something less during the attack.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not really. If I'm completely concealed by an obstacle I have total cover. But if there's a clear path from the edge of the obstacle to your location, then you don't have total cover and can be targeted.

Line of Sight is the same in both directions, and total cover is pretty much a lack of line of sight. If there's a clear path from the obstacle edge to the target, to attack it you need to get into that clear path i.e. line of sight, and as soon as you do, the target has line of sight to you. That's if you play within the normal level of "simulation" covered by the core rules, where you don't need to specify which parts of a creature occupy each specific portion or square of its space; if you go beyond this level, you may have cases when a large creature (especially a long one) doesn't have LOS from his eyes to any part of you while you may have LOS from your eyes to a non-eyes part of it (e.g. the tail), but this is clearly beyond that normal level of detail of the core rules.

Partial cover (half or three-quarter) is different. That one indeed doesn't work the same in both directions (see examples in the DMG).

By the way, three-quarter cover is pretty much the rule meant to cover (sic) the case of someone leaning past the edge of a wall to shoot, which intuitively is quite on par (at least not better) than shooting from an arrow slit.

 

[Hriston]

How can you see the target if you are in total cover?
"A target with *total cover* can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by the object"

If you are 'completely concealed' from the monster, then you surely cannot see it...?

Yes, how do you explain this? If something completely blocks his access to you, then how do you have access to him?

Well first, total cover (as long as it's opaque) completely conceals you. It doesn't completely conceal others from you unless they also have total cover.

Cover is really only relevant with reference to a target, not an attacker.

Second, to explain this to you, I feel I need to use a level of abstraction with which you may not be comfortable. Think Picasso levels of abstraction. Now, imagine that as a medium or small creature you inhabit a 5 foot by 5 foot square and that any part of you may be in any part of that square at any time. You can see from any and all points along the sides of your square you want, and if you can shoot a projectile, you can shoot it from any single point of origin along any side of the square you want. Now imagine that this square you inhabit is completely concealed behind an obstruction, but that one side of it is aligned with the edge of the obstruction. For example, if the obstruction is a length of wall, one side of your square is aligned with the very end of the wall. By placing your imaginary eye at any point on that side of the square, you can see a target on the other side of the wall, and by shooting a projectile from any point on that side of the square, you can attack a target on the other side of the wall.

edit: Here's a diagram to help visualize.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well first, total cover (as long as it's opaque) completely conceals you. It doesn't completely conceal others from you unless they also have total cover.

Please don't take offense, but I don't think this satisfies basic geometry.

Do not mix vision with the concept of unobstructed path (which is what is required to make an attack). Despite the possibly confusing name line of sight actually refers to unobstructed path.

 

[Nailen]

It wouldn't take long to do a practical experiment with a friend and a wall.
I'm pretty sure that if you're behind the wall so they can't see you then you won't be able to see them. If you move to the edge of the wall so you can see along the edge of it, they will be able to see you.
Unless your walls work like those mirrors that allow you to see through from one direction..

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using EN World mobile app

 

[lkwpeter]

You missed my position:

3.) While hiding behind an obstacle you have total cover, but your target does not and can be targeted without you having to step out from behind the obstacle.

Yes, I did. Sorry for that. I added it to my post.

Well first, total cover (as long as it's opaque) completely conceals you. It doesn't completely conceal others from you unless they also have total cover.

Cover is really only relevant with reference to a target, not an attacker.

Second, to explain this to you, I feel I need to use a level of abstraction with which you may not be comfortable. Think Picasso levels of abstraction. Now, imagine that as a medium or small creature you inhabit a 5 foot by 5 foot square and that any part of you may be in any part of that square at any time. You can see from any and all points along the sides of your square you want, and if you can shoot a projectile, you can shoot it from any single point of origin along any side of the square you want. Now imagine that this square you inhabit is completely concealed behind an obstruction, but that one side of it is aligned with the edge of the obstruction. For example, if the obstruction is a length of wall, one side of your square is aligned with the very end of the wall. By placing your imaginary eye at any point on that side of the square, you can see a target on the other side of the wall, and by shooting a projectile from any point on that side of the square, you can attack a target on the other side of the wall.

edit: Here's a diagram to help visualize.

View attachment 91562

Nice description! Sound reasonable to me. The DMG 251 states exactly what you described:

To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and rrace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks visionsuch as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.

To make it even clearer, you could draw the line from the bottom left edge of the attack to the botton left edge of the target. That would indisputably represent a straigh path.

But is it possible to hide behind 3/4 cover?

---

Edit: Book quotation.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But is it possible to hide behind 3/4 cover?

Yes, but where total cover means you are automatically unseen, 3/4 cover would mean that you're able to be seen, and thus require a check.
Depending on whether you're ducking out of sight behind the cover to try to remain concealed, or just standing behind it fighting.

I'd place someone leaning out from behind a wall in order to shoot or throw a weapon as 3/4 cover for example.

 

[Hriston]

I think if you're attempting to assess the current state of the battlefield, aim and shoot all in one go then you can attack but it will be at disadvantage. It's a wild shot.

That isn't how I imagine it. The way I imagine it is that you're keeping track of the battlefield the entire time leading up to your attack. For example, you're aware of the locations of all participants that aren't hidden from you, even those you can't see due to visual obstruction. Because you're positioned to attack from hiding, though, you can see whatever portion of the battlefield that can be seen from your vantage point.

 

[Hriston]

OK but that is still saying you break cover during the attack, not that you are actually attacking through cover.

You are neither breaking cover nor attacking through the object that grants cover. The line of sight/attack has no thickness. I would say you're attacking from hiding.

Whether breaking cover like that should expose your position is a different question.

Your position is revealed when the attack hits or misses, which allows you to remain hidden as you make the attack itself.

 

[Oofta]

You are neither breaking cover nor attacking through the object that grants cover. The line of sight/attack has no thickness. I would say you're attacking from hiding.



You're position is revealed when the attack hits or misses, which allows you to remain hidden as you make the attack itself.

I would say this is where the DM comes in. I want my games to work somewhat like the real world with addition of magic and monsters, not a computer game where you can take advantage of an edge case.

You have to lean out far enough to see, far enough to throw/shoot. You don't need to move into a square with no obstruction but you can't shoot through a wall. If you lean out far enough to attack, you're leaning out far enough to be seen. Whether or not you are seen is situational.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would say this is where the DM comes in. I want my games to work somewhat like the real world with addition of magic and monsters, not a computer game where you can take advantage of an edge case.

You have to lean out far enough to see, far enough to throw/shoot. You don't need to move into a square with no obstruction but you can't shoot through a wall. If you lean out far enough to attack, you're leaning out far enough to be seen. Whether or not you are seen is situational.

For me, this all works out via the rules as I've read them.

Using a rogue for the sake of example... the rogue out in the open throws a dagger at an enemy also out in the open using his Action. He then Moves behind a stone wall gaining total cover. He then uses his Bonus (cunning) action to make a DEX (Stealth) check to try and Hide, rendering him not only unseen (due to the cover) but also unheard, unsmelt, and unfelt (assuming the Stealth check is higher than the enemy's Passive Perception.)

This rogue is now considered Hidden. Thus in the next round, the rogue can now lean out or above the wall, use his Action to make an attack with Advantage (after which point he's no longer considered Hidden), then lean back behind or below the wall again and regain total cover. He then can still Move if he'd like, and use his Bonus action to try and Hide again if he remains behind total cover (or other Heavily Obscuring terrain.) And the rogue can do this ad infinitum-- attack with Advantage, move behind total cover, make a DEX (Stealth) check, and if that check is higher than his next target's Passive Perception, the next attack is with Advantage. This is how I have always interpreted the Stealth rules personally. And the way to counter the rogue is for enemies to either move their own position such that the Heavily Obscuring terrain no longer blocks sight (IE they move around the wall and see the rogue standing there in broad daylight)... or other attackers Ready their actions to attack the rogue when he pops out from behind the total cover. And this attack occurs directly after the rogue has made their attack with Advantage (which has broken his Hidden status) and before the rogue can duck back behind the cover. For this particular attack against the rogue, I usually grant the "half-cover" +2 AC bonus to the rogue in that time of the lean.

Now that being said, I also have added a personal house-rule on top of these rules just because I wanted to make my rogue players have to think a little bit more in terms of positioning. I made the rule in my game that you cannot gain Advantage from being Hidden on an attack if it comes from the same position you attacked with Advantage from being Hidden last time. Your next attack must come from a position at least 10 feet away the previous one to gain Advantage on it.

So while a rogue could be behind a tree, attack with Advantage (assuming a higher Stealth check), then duck back behind that tree again to regain total cover for the rest of the round... if he remains behind that tree he cannot make another Stealth check to re-Hide. In my visualization, the enemy knows exactly where the rogue is and can defend from him as normal. For the rogue to re-Hide, he would have to move from behind that tree, through some obscuring terrain at least 10 feet, then arrive behind some other tree or Heavily Obscuring terrain and then make the new DEX (Stealth) check.

But that's just a personal add-on, and is not I don't believe, a part of the actual generic Stealth rules as they appear in the books as I've read them.

 

[Oofta]

For me, this all works out via the rules as I've read them.

Using a rogue for the sake of example... the rogue out in the open throws a dagger at an enemy also out in the open using his Action. He then Moves behind a stone wall gaining total cover. He then uses his Bonus (cunning) action to make a DEX (Stealth) check to try and Hide, rendering him not only unseen (due to the cover) but also unheard, unsmelt, and unfelt (assuming the Stealth check is higher than the enemy's Passive Perception.)

This rogue is now considered Hidden.
...

I agree that they are hidden from any creature that cannot clearly see them and that have passive perception lower than the stealth check.

That doesn't mean the enemy forgets the rogue exists and that he just saw the rogue go around the corner. The enemy may well expect the rogue to attack again in a few moments and keep an eye on the spot. Or the enemy simply walks around the corner.

Thus in the next round, the rogue can now lean out or above the wall
...

I would say that at that moment the rogue can be clearly seen and are no longer necessarily hidden. In some cases the enemy still won't notice them in my game, but there is no magic "hidden" condition that persists once there is line of sight.

All of this is left up to the DM of course, the rules are purposefully vague to allow people to run the kind of game they want.

 

[Hriston]

I would say this is where the DM comes in. I want my games to work somewhat like the real world with addition of magic and monsters, not a computer game where you can take advantage of an edge case.

Computer game? Maybe you're confused. I'm talking about combat resolution mechanics, which are necessarily an abstraction. The resulting fiction can be whatever you prefer it to be. Also, what edge case? Attacking from a hidden position behind an object is how attacking from hiding usually happens, no?

You have to lean out far enough to see, far enough to throw/shoot. You don't need to move into a square with no obstruction but you can't shoot through a wall. If you lean out far enough to attack, you're leaning out far enough to be seen. Whether or not you are seen is situational.

Wasn't that already resolved by the contest that established you were hidden in the first place?

 

[Oofta]

Computer game? Maybe you're confused. I'm talking about combat resolution mechanics, which are necessarily an abstraction. The resulting fiction can be whatever you prefer it to be. Also, what edge case? Attacking from a hidden position behind an object is how attacking from hiding usually happens, no?

I don't believe in RAW as in the rules and nothing but the rules interpretation of the game. The rules can't be read like computer code without adding in a good dose of common sense.

Can you fire from around a corner by leaning out? Of course. You don't have to move into the unobstructed square. But you do have to lean out, at which point if you can see you can be seen. That's just basic logic not explicitly stated by the rules.

Wasn't that already resolved by the contest that established you were hidden in the first place?

The moment someone has clear line of sight you may no longer be hidden. The key point is that you were hidden when there was no line of sight. The moment the situation changes, the moment there is line of sight the situation changes. The DM needs to make the call of how to resolve that. Is the rogue automatically seen? Did the enemy look away?

 

[nswanson27]

This is started to go down some very worn paths. There's been plenty of sage advice and other discussions about this already.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Computer game? Maybe you're confused. I'm talking about combat resolution mechanics, which are necessarily an abstraction. The resulting fiction can be whatever you prefer it to be. Also, what edge case? Attacking from a hidden position behind an object is how attacking from hiding usually happens, no?

I think that he is referring to the way this works like a computer glitch or a two-dimensional character: Being able to sight and attack along an infinitely thin flat vertical plane without having anything poking out.

Wasn't that already resolved by the contest that established you were hidden in the first place?

Total cover means that they can't see you, no matter what you got on your Stealth check: all of you is behind it.
In order to look or attack around the cover, you need to expose your head (and arm(s) if you're attacking something) by moving it out from behind the cover. At which point stealth becomes important because you are no longer in total cover and it is possible to see you. Whether or not your movement or exposed part(s) are actually seen will depend upon stealth now.

The exception that I can think of is when your cover is transparent such as a wall of force. If you're completely behind that, you are still in total cover, but you can see though it and your opponents can see you through it. You will still have to stick an arm or something out from behind it in order to attack something on the other side though.

Or a different exception is when you're using an indirect attack, like just tossing a bottle of alchemists fire blindly from behind cover: you could just lob something over the top without having to stick anything out from behind it.