D&D 5E Rogues are Awesome. Is it the Tasha's Effect?

[Weiley31]

never take both cantrips on the same character

One is good enough.

 

[Charlaquin]

The trouble is that all you have to do is hide as the first thing on your turn and then attack. You only need to be hidden when you make your attack roll. You don't have to start your turn hidden, and you only need to hide from your intended target.

Right, but if you set aside the term “hide” for a second and look at what’s actually happening, I think it makes sense. A lightfoot halfling positions themself with a Medium creature between themself and their target, so as to obscure their target’s vision of them. The target can’t see the lightfoot halfling clearly, but does still know their location. The halfling, being naturally stealthy, can use their bonus action to take advantage of the target’s obscured view, allowing them to make a ranged attack with advantage from this position (though also at a -2 penalty since the Medium creature is granting their target half cover.) On the target’s turn, they know exactly where the halfling is, and can easily reposition themself so they can see and even attack the halfling.

I don’t see anything unreasonable about that narratively. The halfling isn’t so much “hidden” in the colloquial sense, so much as they are sufficiently obscured that the target can’t see them making the attack, and therefore can’t easily anticipate when the attack will come or from what precise angle. If being within 5 feet of one of the halfling’s allies is enough to qualify for sneak attack, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that this would be too.

That's true, those are the base rules for hiding.

Except Naturally Stealthy throws a large monkey wrench into the works. It says, "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." That makes it rather hard to say that this ability doesn't mean that you're supposed to be able to hide merely by moving behind a medium size creature, such as a human ally.

Well, technically it does say “you can attempt to hide, not that you can always successfully hide. It’s still up to the DM to determine if the attempt succeeds, fails, or requires a check to resolve. While I personally think it’s against the spirit of the ability to say that the attempt fails without a check, it is well within the DM’s role to rule that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

One is good enough.

I’d take both. They’re useful in different situations.

 

[auburn2]

Maybe I am doing hide wrong? Here is my 2 cents:

A rogue needs to be fully obscured to hide in combat. Generally, the only way to attack from a hidden position in combat is being in darkness vs a creature without darkvision or being invisibile. That means a Rogue is generally not going to be able to attack while hidden. You can hide behind that tapestry, meaning the enemy does not know where you are, but as soon as you step out to shoot you are no longer hidden and no longer have advantage. I suppose you can shoot through the tapestry, but then you can't see the enemy and have disadvantage which cancels the being hidden advantage. If it is a wall or an overturned table you are hiding behind you can't shoot through it (and neither can the enemy).

That is how I play my game. So the Rogue can hide repeatedly behind that same tapestry and when he is behind there he is hidden and gains all the advantages from such. In such an example the enemy not only has disadvantage he does not know where to shoot - assuming a 15' wide tapestry does he shoot at the left side, the right side or the center of the tapestry. If he picks center and the Rogue is on the left it is an automatic miss. If he picks correctly he has disadvantage on the roll because he can't see him. If the Rogue fails his stealth he is still behind the tapestry but the enemy knows where he is - the enemy still can't see him though and gets disadvantage on his roll.

Now the key difference with halflings is they can hide behind a creature that is one size bigger. This means they can hide while partially obscured by another creature. Thematically I guess you don't know if he is behind the right leg or left leg or on his back......

This means unlike other Rogues, halfings CAN attack from a hidden position regularly during combat. Note they have to attack from behind the creature, which means the enemy has cover, usually a+5 to AC although it can be less for a huge or larger enemy. The halflings can do that every single round in my game if they pass their stealth check. They get the advantage but they also take the cover penalty. If they move out from behind the creature before shooting to avoid the cover penalty then they are no longer hidden, just like the Rogue that moves out from behind the tapestry.

This is how we run my game and I think this is RAI.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe I am doing hide wrong? Here is my 2 cents:

A rogue needs to be fully obscured to hide in combat. With the exception of being in darkness vs a creature without darkvision or being invisibile that means he is generally not going to be able to attack while hidden. You can hide behind that tapestry, meaning the enemy does not know where you are, but as soon as you step out to shoot you are no longer hidden and no longer have advantage. I suppose you can shoot through the tapestry, but then you can't see the enemy and have disadvantage which cancels the being hidden advantage. If it is a wall or an overturned table you are hiding behind you can't shoot through it.

That is how I play my game. So the Rogue can hide repeatedly behind that same tapestry and when he is behind there he is hidden and gains all the advantages from such. In such an example the enemy not only has disadvantage he does not know where to shoot - assuming a 15' wide tapestry does he shoot at the left side, the right side or the center of the tapestry. If he picks center and the Rogue is on the left it is an automatic miss. If he picks correctly he has disadvantage on the roll because he can't see him. If the Rogue fails his stealth he is still behind the tapestry but the enemy knows where he is. The enemy still can't see him though and gets disadvantage on his roll.

Now the key difference with halflings is they can hide behind a creature that is one size bigger. This means they can hide while partially obscured by another creature. Thematically I guess you don't know if he is behind the right leg or left leg or on his back......

This means unlike other Rogues halfings CAN attack from a hidden position regularly during combat. Note they have to attack from behind the creature, which means the enemy has cover, usually a+5 to AC. The halflings can do that every single round in my game if they pass their stealth check. They get the advantage but they also take the cover penalty. If they move out from behind the creature before shooting to avoid the cover penalty then they are no longer hidden, just like the Rogue that moves out from behind the tapestry.

This is how we run my game and I think this is RAI.

I’d rule half cover (+2 to AC) rather than 3/4 (+5, as you said), but otherwise, yes.

 

[Zardnaar]

Elven accuracy feat + Tasha's derp.

 

[auburn2]

I’d rule half cover (+2 to AC) rather than 3/4 (+5, as you said), but otherwise, yes.

As a player I agree with you ........ as a DM it is +5 for a large or smaller enemy.

Seriously I could see either. At +5 for a medium AC enemy it cancels the chance of hitting with advantage but still allows SA and movement after the attack. In other words you will hit just about as often but you will get SA since you have "advantage". Againt a high AC enemy it is better - If you need a 20 to hit without the +5 then the +5 is largely irrelevant and 2 rolls gives you nearly twice the chance. Against a low AC enemy you are probably going to hit him anyway.

Now the best thing is sharpshooter feat because it ignores cover. I generally do not get sharpshooter with a non-halfling Rogue because the -5 to hit means you won't land SA as often, however a halfling Rogue with a light crossbow and sharpshooter rocks. Forget about the +10 damage and just take advantage and ignore cover.

 

[Charlaquin]

As a player I agree with you ........ as a DM it is +5 for a large or smaller enemy.

I’m not sure that’s supported by RAW, but if it works for you, have at it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I’m not sure that’s supported by RAW, but if it works for you, have at it.

Read the rules on cover?

Would probably only apply the -5 if shooting directly through the pc cover. Mostly -2 imho.

 

[auburn2]

Read the rules on cover?

Would probably only apply the -5 if shooting directly through the pc cover. Mostly -2 imho.

You are hiding behind the medium (or larger) creature. You have to shoot "directly through" his space to remain hidden.

An average human has a cross section area of 6.8 square feet, In a 25 square foot 5'x5' plane he person covers substantially more than 25% of the surface area of the space he is in. A tall fat human or dragonborn is more, a short thin elf or a Dwarf is less.

Assuming the enemy is 5 feet away from and directly on the other side of the person you are hiding behind; the 6.8 square feet at 5' distance will cover a surface area of 13.6 square feet or more than half of the 25 square foot area at 10 feet. If the target is 5 feet away from the person you are hiding behind and 10 feet from you, over half of the space he is occupying is covered by the person you are hiding behind. At ranges beyond 10 feet that number increases.

Another thing to consider is this mathmatical analysis does not account for the fact you are hiding. This assumes you are randomly positioned in yoru space. In fact you are hiding and purposely putting yourself behind the cover of the person in front of you as opposed to just positioning yoruself at rrandom in your 5 foot square. So in actuality it will be higher than the 54% noted at 10 feet and well beyond 75% at range.