The whole pillar thing depends on the circumstance. A single pillar in a big empty room while fighting a seasoned warrior? No, you can't just duck behind the pillar and hide from the warrior. Then wait a few seconds and then backstab him and repeat as he wonders where you could possibly be. Now a room with a few pillars, etc. in low light and the warrior is distracted fighting some allies? That would be a totally different situation. No hard, boolean rules here (unlike how most ppl here like to argue). The game should be about flexibility - especially in areas where there are no hard rules. I'm pretty sure Lyxen would feel the same way.If you hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally, your opponents shouldn’t have absolutely no idea where you are. I agree with @Lyxen that would be absurd. The difference is, Lyxen concludes it must therefore be impossible to hide behind a pillar or your Medium sized ally (more than once? Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding your position), whereas I conclude that your opponents must therefore have some idea where you are. But, you still get the benefits of hiding - if you attack whilst hidden behind the pillar or your ally, you’ll get advantage, since your opponent can’t see you and predict exactly when you’ll attack or from which side of the pillar/your ally or at what height. If they try to attack you from where they are, they’ll have disadvantage since they can’t see yiu (in addition to any cover bonus the pillar or your ally might grant you). Of course, that would be kind of a stupid thing to do, since they could easily just walk around the pillar or your ally to a place from which they can see you clearly and then attack.
Wouldn't the fighter be learning about the opponent's defenses at the same time?I'm just curious if you make it increasingly harder for fighters to hit the same opponent repeatedly? It stands to reason that the enemy would eventually pick up on the fighter's attack patterns.
No one - absolutely no one - is suggesting that you can duck behind the pillar, wait a few seconds, and backstab someone as they wonder where you could possibly be. As I have said repeatedly, if you hide behind a lone pillar in a big empty room, you opponent will know you’re behind the pillar and on their turn they can easily just walk around it, to a spot where they can clearly see you, and attack you with no penalty.The whole pillar thing depends on the circumstance. A single pillar in a big empty room while fighting a seasoned warrior? No, you can't just duck behind the pillar and hide from the warrior. Then wait a few seconds and then backstab him and repeat as he wonders where you could possibly be.
I’m sure we all feel the same way - there are always going to be specific cases where the DM has to make a call, and the rules rightly empower them to do so. What I’m arguing against at this point is the absurd notion that allowing what I describe above is somehow “not roleplaying” or discourages players from thinking in terms of the fictional world, or requires the characters to be stupid.Now a room with a few pillars, etc. in low light and the warrior is distracted fighting some allies? That would be a totally different situation. No hard, boolean rules here (unlike how most ppl here like to argue). The game should be about flexibility - especially in areas where there are no hard rules. I'm pretty sure Lyxen would feel the same way.
But a halfling does not need to come out! Any character can shoot through another creatures space (not so through a pillar). The halfling can stay behind his ally and shoot at his enemy. He is only hidden (and therefore unseen) in such a case because of his halfling ability and he remains hidden until he attacks.
This example is not similar to a Rogue popping out from a pillar, it is more like a Rogue shooting through an illusionary pillar. The Rogue is behind an illusionary pillar (say from silent image). He knows the pillar is an illusion and can see the enemy on the other side of it even though the enemy can't see him. The halfling is in the same situation, he can hide behind a human and the enemy can't see him, but he can still see the enemy. The only difference is the enemy has cover in the example with the halfling and he doesn't in the example with the Rogue.
Why didn’t you know he was there? You’re aware of your surroundings and alert for danger during combat, so you’d have seen him go behind the pillar and not come out from behind it. You know where he is, you just don’t see him, which makes defending against attacks from him difficult because you can’t see his telegraphs. Again, this is someone anyone who has played a first person shooter has experienced, and probably used to their advantage.
What I’m objecting to at this point is not your ruling, but your insistence that the alternative doesn’t make a bit of narrative sense. It makes plenty of sense if you have a different set of assumptions, as I explained above.
It’s very simple. If you don’t assume that being “hidden” from someone means they have no idea where they are, but merely that they can’t currently see or hear you, then creatures don’t have to be idiots to get hit with advantage multiple times by an enemy hiding in the same spot.
No, it isn’t. Being hidden gives the attacker advantage on attack rolls and imposes disadvantage on attack rolls against them.
Right, but to what end? It gives no defensive advantage since your opponents can just walk around your ally, see you there, and attack you. And given your ruling it seems to give no offensive advantage either since you’re seen when you peek out from behind your ally to attack. So, it seems there’s no point. You’re just using a bonus action and rolling a Dex check to accomplish nothing at all.
Sure, he can watch for the halfling exactly at the same place. Then the halfling can lean out from the other side. Or he can crouch and pop out at a lower angle. Or he can stay where he is and arc a shot over his ally’s head, or between their legs.
Nothing about it suggests you wouldn’t be able to do so.
Yes, the DM could rule that way, and it would be consistent with RAW. It would also make Naturally Stealthy useless, which makes me suspect it is not consistent with RAI.
I agree with this assessment of how attacking whole obscured by darkness works. That’s not the use case under contention here,
Concealment isn’t a thing in 5e, it’s either cover or obscurement.
That’s up to DM discretion.
I don’t dispute that.
I can’t parse this. What are you saying?
Correct the target will benefit from half cover as the halfling's attack originates on the opposite side of the cover granted by a creature.It's a good point, however the halfling would have to accept that the target has some cover. How much is up for debate, as, once more in these areas, it's a DM's ruling, however, it would be at the very least half-cover (usual amount of cover for having a creature between your target and you),
In Hide and Seek, the goal is to make the other player unaware of one's location. Hiding in the same place repeatedly makes it trivial for the other player to be aware of one's location, no matter how quiet you are.Except the plain logic that even a 5 years old playing hide and seek can explain to you.
Correct the target will benefit from half cover as the halfling's attack originates on the opposite side of the cover granted by a creature.
actually no.Correct the target will benefit from half cover as the halfling's attack originates on the opposite side of the cover granted by a creature.
shooter is in cover, but target is not. Shooter only needs to clear weapon and one eye out of cover.
What then with castle arrow slits? They give +5 cover. and they do not impede aiming at the target if it's in the open. It will however reduce the area that you can shoot into. But those you see, you see clearly. Unless they have their own cover to hide behind.
What?Bravo, you just have proven that, actually, cover does not exist, since all you need is to shoot at the right place and the right time. So simple. I'd really like to see you shoot like that...
In Hide and Seek, the goal is to make the other player unaware of one's location. Hiding in the same place repeatedly makes it trivial for the other player to be aware of one's location, no matter how quiet you are.
Conversely, in the example with a single pillar, the goal at my table isn't to make the enemy unaware of one's location, it's to capitalize on one's ability to remain unseen and unheard long enough to make a target in the open less able to predict the timing of the inevitable attack. Successfully doing so doesn't require fooling the target or taking advantage of them being dumb, it just requires being quiet enough that that the target can't use hearing to know when the attack is coming.
From the target's perspective, at my table they still know that the Rogue is behind the pillar even after the successful hide check, and can act appropriately to defend themselves by taking the Dodge action, moving to cover, or moving to engage the Rogue in melee. The Rogue only gets repeated advantage on their attacks if the target chooses not to take (or is prevented from taking) any of these countermeasures.
You appear to be interpreting the act of attacking from hiding as necessarily fooling the target in the some way in order to get advantage. That's cool, and definitely works within the very broad rules for hiding in 5e. But it's not the only way to envision what's happening in the fiction.
Those of use who approach it differently don't see fooling the target or making them unaware of the Rogue's location as a part of the fiction, so when we give the Rogue advantage we're not implying that the target was fooled or too dumb to play Hide and Seek. Accordingly, we're also not placing any less emphasis on the importance of the fiction than you are--we're simply using different fiction.
Shooter still has more then half of his body behind cover. Shooter is a SMALLER target because of that. Smaller target is harder to hit.
Unless you use some called shots variant, but that carries it's own penalty for aiming at smaller part of body instead of "hit anything".
Oh. Sorry, since you pointed to it as evidence that AT far outstrips other classes, I thought you were standing by the general results, not defending the correctness of the arithmetic.No I mean he calculated it correctly. Not that it is the "correct baseline to use."
This definitely runs into the GM determining if conditions are good for you to hide. Personally, I'd rule no. However, you are correct, there is nothing specifically outlawing it in the rules.Can you try to hide from a creature grappling you?
If the grappler can't clearly see you, i mean, it certainly knows where you are having you grappled, but the Stealth rules don't exclude it specifically. I use a similar approach to re-hiding in same location.
Actually, I've been saying that this could happen. But I'm also not presuming a single pillar in an empty white room and no other party members to keep the enemy distracted. It was more in the context of using the same hiding place multiple times.No one - absolutely no one - is suggesting that you can duck behind the pillar, wait a few seconds, and backstab someone as they wonder where you could possibly be.