log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

Lyxen

Great Old One
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.

Technically, looking only at the rules, you are right, for example if you are in complete darkness, although he touches you, he cannot see you.

But honestly I would never allow it. He's touching you, so he knows where you are, and you can't move away.

I'm still trying to find a situation where it would really provide some advantage, though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
So just a point. While swinging a sword may take slightly longer, it takes about six hundredths of a second to throw a punch. Yet people respond to and block those punches. In D&D you can react to and block a dozen or more punches from different opponents as long as you can see them all.

I just don't see why people would have enough time to react to those attacks, but not the attacks of someone that leans out from cover, aims, times it so they aren't hitting their ally when they know where the attack is likely to come from. Totally unexpected? Okay, it kind of makes sense. The second or third time? You have as much warning as the fact that ogre #3 that's directly behind you is going to throw a punch while ogre #2 to your side and ogre #1 in your face is doing the same.

I don't have a problem with people running this multiple ways, but using "they don't have enough time to react to see the attack coming" as a reason why it must be that way is what doesn't make sense to me. If you're doing it because it suits your style and vision of the game - fantastic! That's all you need to say. Just like for me it doesn't. 🤷‍♂️
That's an odd video. They make that claim, but then fail to prove it, or do so in a way that's not clear. The first "punch" is a jab from a partially extended arm -- the fastest punch throwable -- and doesn't have much power to it because it's a fencing move. The followup is a right hand that starts when the hand dips at .57 and finishes followthrough at .85, taking .18 seconds -- 3 times slower than claimed. It's also not blocked at all -- the other fighter hasn't even started a motion to block. Human reaction time has been well measured at about .25 seconds, which this clip claiming to show .06 second punches clearly shows that the other fighter, who should have a faster than average reaction time, doesn't react to the .18 second punch thrown.

In other words, your source seems iffy -- it's written in a very hyped manner and seems to have taken a non-scientific analysis of a not-high-framerate fight and cherry picked a straight jab as it's source -- one that for your purposes isn't actually reacted to so much as the fighter coming into it anticipates it. But, better still, actual, well documented science says that reaction time is .25 seconds, and not the .06 seconds you're saying is normal for fighters (it's not).
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
yes, but cover does not usually works both ways.

There is no such rule. Just apply cover the way it's meant to, by computing the percentage covered for each situation, and you'll find that it's as often symmetrical as not.

By the way, an arrowslit is more or less symmetrical in itself. The reason for the cover not to work the same way is the proximity of the creatures to the arrowslit, not the geometry of the arrowslit (although some have triangular space to allow easier access, it does not really count for cover, it's mostly so that you have a larger arc of fire from within the fortification).
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
There is no such rule. Just apply cover the way it's meant to, by computing the percentage covered for each situation, and you'll find that it's as often symmetrical as not.

By the way, an arrowslit is more or less symmetrical in itself. The reason for the cover not to work the same way is the proximity of the creatures to the arrowslit, not the geometry of the arrowslit (although some have triangular space to allow easier access, it does not really count for cover, it's mostly so that you have a larger arc of fire from within the fortification).
It absolutely always works this one way except when it doesn't!
 

Horwath

Hero
There is no such rule. Just apply cover the way it's meant to, by computing the percentage covered for each situation, and you'll find that it's as often symmetrical as not.
OK,
if I'm shooting behind cover at my target I have 50% cover against attacks made by my target, while my target has 0% cover against my attacks.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
That's an odd video. They make that claim, but then fail to prove it, or do so in a way that's not clear. The first "punch" is a jab from a partially extended arm -- the fastest punch throwable -- and doesn't have much power to it because it's a fencing move. The followup is a right hand that starts when the hand dips at .57 and finishes followthrough at .85, taking .18 seconds -- 3 times slower than claimed. It's also not blocked at all -- the other fighter hasn't even started a motion to block. Human reaction time has been well measured at about .25 seconds, which this clip claiming to show .06 second punches clearly shows that the other fighter, who should have a faster than average reaction time, doesn't react to the .18 second punch thrown.

In other words, your source seems iffy -- it's written in a very hyped manner and seems to have taken a non-scientific analysis of a not-high-framerate fight and cherry picked a straight jab as it's source -- one that for your purposes isn't actually reacted to so much as the fighter coming into it anticipates it. But, better still, actual, well documented science says that reaction time is .25 seconds, and not the .06 seconds you're saying is normal for fighters (it's not).

It's a bit long for me, 19 minutes, but I have a couple of anecdotes, in particular about my kendo sensei, who had dabbled in about every martial art on the planet before going to Japan and earning his dans.

He gave us a demonstration that was really interesting as to how a kendo strike is quite similar to a punch, as long as you are doing it right, the positions are somewhat similar, and there's a lot about the positioning of the foot at the rear to get power, the stability of the core and the speed of the arm being augmented by the torsion of the forearm and the hand. Then, in kendo, you have the whiplash of the blade going forward, but still the rotation of the hands around the hilt, just like your fist rotates when you punch.

Of course, in kendo, it's all about speed and cutting and not about the power of the punch. But doing it right with your whole body changes absolutely everything.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
OK,
if I'm shooting behind cover at my target I have 50% cover against attacks made by my target, while my target has 0% cover against my attacks.
It really depends on the type of cover. If you are standing just behind a low wall, I 100% agree with you, the wall covers your legs when it covers nothing of your foe.

If the target has cover because there is a creature standing between you two, you have exactly the same degree of cover.
 



Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
While we are in agreement here, we have to be careful at the same time. The exact rule is that "A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body." A creature is just an example of what might usually provide cover for at least half of its body ("The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.").

However, if a halfling were to hide behind, let's say, a purple worm or a gelatinous cube, the DM might rule that the target has at least three-quarter cover and maybe total cover for the gelatinous cube.
Creatures provide half cover, wether they're tiny or Gargantua.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
actually no.

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.
A target benefit from cover, not the attacker. So a target has three-quarters cover when covered by an obstacle such as an arrow slit, when someone attack it. It can attack through it without penalty as it's designed for this. A creature is not a still arrow slit opening, it's a moving creature, and any attack or effect that originates on the opposite side of the cover grant cover to the target. A halfling can hide when obscured by a larger creature meaning it stays on the opposite side of it or else the target will clearly see the halfling.
 

Creatures provide half cover, wether they're tiny or Gargantua.
“A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.”

so… not exactly… a tiny creature will not grant half cover to a medium sized PC b/c a tiny creature would not block at least half of the PC’s body.
 

Redwizard007

Explorer
So just a point. While swinging a sword may take slightly longer, it takes about six hundredths of a second to throw a punch. Yet people respond to and block those punches. In D&D you can react to and block a dozen or more punches from different opponents as long as you can see them all.

I just don't see why people would have enough time to react to those attacks, but not the attacks of someone that leans out from cover, aims, times it so they aren't hitting their ally when they know where the attack is likely to come from. Totally unexpected? Okay, it kind of makes sense. The second or third time? You have as much warning as the fact that ogre #3 that's directly behind you is going to throw a punch while ogre #2 to your side and ogre #1 in your face is doing the same.

I totally understand your reasoning, and concede that it is 100% logical, but I disagree for one major reason. D&D isn't a simulation of the real world. If I can wrap my head around giant flying reptiles that breathe pure cold, giants so large their legs should shatter, hippies turning into dire squirrels, nerds casting spells, and enraged half-wits shrugging off blows that should maim them instantly, what is wrong with shady pickpockets being unnaturally good at shooting you when you are looking away for a split second?

In your opinion, would it be reasonable to believe that rogues have an uncanny ability to time their strikes for maximum effect that is unique to their class? They seem to be capable of doing so when a target is engaged with another foe or even distracted by a familiar, or at least I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary. Making the leap to include peeking out and attacking from even poor concealment seems perfectly natural to me. It doesn't really matter that you know where the shot is coming from if you don't know when it is coming.

Honestly, in OP's example, I could see granting the sneak attack but not making the attack at advantage. It's not RAW, but I think it's a reasonable compromise at any table having this debate. For most of us, we seem to have a consensus at our tables one way or another. Both work as RAW with different interpretations of how to apply the rules, and its another example of where the designers failed to be clear enough to prevent dozens of pages of arguments that have in several instances passed beyond civil discourse.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
“A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.”

so… not exactly… a tiny creature will not grant half cover to a medium sized PC b/c a tiny creature would not block at least half of the PC’s body.
Cover provided by creature has no size implication mentioned. Confirmed also by the Devs;

 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
“A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.”

so… not exactly… a tiny creature will not grant half cover to a medium sized PC b/c a tiny creature would not block at least half of the PC’s body.
I think the argument there was based on if a creature is providing cover at all, size doesn't matter. Unspoken assumptions will get you every time.

EDIT: although, I could be wrong....
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
Also from Sage Advice:

Target at range caught in melee combat—does that target get some kind of cover or do I get disadvantage? Your target has half-cover if another creature is between you and the target (PH, 196).
 

Horwath

Hero
Also from Sage Advice:

Target at range caught in melee combat—does that target get some kind of cover or do I get disadvantage? Your target has half-cover if another creature is between you and the target (PH, 196).
I'm going to use logic and say that Small creature does not provide any cover to Huge creature, maybe even note to Large creature or generous +1 AC
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
I believe the reason creatures provide half cover is because they are not static hard object, but fluid cover. And rather than have more complex cover based on size, they opted for simplicity, creature = half-cover regardless of size. Afterall, a tiny or guargantua creature could motion during attack and either let pass the attack more or less easily somehow.
 

Cover provided by creature has no size implication mentioned. Confirmed also by the Devs;

But a tiny creature in no way “blocks at least half” of a medium PC’s body as the rule insists is a condition of cover.
It would be like saying any low wall provides half cover to a standing medium PC even if said low wall is only 18 inches high.
I’ll choose to disagree with JC’s tweet here.

EDIT to add: I’ll concede if a pixie is fluttering around in front of said PC one could accept that is half cover. But a rat scrabbling at the PC’s feet? Not so much.
 
Last edited:


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top