log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Lyxen

Great Old One
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.

Yes, the main reason is that most creatures do not occupy their whole space and even a tarrasque has pretty thin legs.

However, that tweet it not official, the only official rule about cover is: "A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. "

And that's it, the following sentence is, clearly, from the wording only a list of examples: "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."

That being said, for the reasons that you outlined and I completed, I will usually grant half-cover for one creature, but I will apply the rule properly for unusual creatures and situations, such as the gelatinous cube who is large and occupies all of its space in 3 dimensions, or when the size differences are great, for example a rat and a tarrasque. The tarrasque might give only half-cover to a rat, because it's moving and lifting its legs, but the rat will provide no cover at all for a tarrasque. And that is 100% official.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

The question Jeremy answers here seems to be about whether or not creatures can ever grant more than half-cover, not if they always do. So I would not consider this tweet as relevant to the question if a tiny creature can grant cover to a medium one.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
Galetinous Cube is an exception to the rules as it takes up its entire space, where normally a creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.

I'd rule it provide total cover to target on the opposite side of it for this reason.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
The question Jeremy answers here seems to be about whether or not creatures can ever grant more than half-cover, not if they always do. So I would not consider this tweet as relevant to the question if a tiny creature can grant cover to a medium one.
What Jeremy Crawford says cannot be any more clear than that

"A creature provides half cover, regardless of that creature's size."
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
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.
First, I agree that D&D is not a particularly realistic simulation. I do think that a rogue should get advantage in combat at least occasionally, or even on multiple turns in a combat with enough chaos and cover. It's not that they would never get to attack after being hidden, it's a question of is the target anticipating an attack from that location for me.

If you have ... say a hundred archer goblins all firing at you at once but they weren't hidden before the attack they would not get advantage, correct? Because the assumption is that while you didn't know exactly who in your party they would be attacking, they were there and they were going to attack at some point. Your PC was anticipating the attack, even if the goblins were all firing from different directions they had no advantage. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that if you know where a rogue was attacking from, you are also anticipating their attack and there would be no advantage.

One simple example: there are guards in the hall that are alert and ready for trouble. Typical, 10 foot wide corridor with a T-intersection that they're staring at. If a rogue comes around the corner they're staring at, I'm sorry but the rogue is not going to get advantage. They see you coming. On the other hand, if the rogue can stealthily get behind the guards to attack they will get advantage; the guards were expecting the attack from the T intersection in front of them, not the open door behind them.

If you want to rule differently that's fine as well. There's just too many situations to have a blanket rule without DM adjudication and some level of "does this at least kind-of-sort-of make sense to me". There are simply too many variables, too many preferences, to come up with hard-and-fast rules. Rules in previous editions often left our group scratching our heads thinking "how the **** would that work" because it was just too mechanical, too much rules over rulings. For us, it felt like a board game.

So I have no problem with how people run it. I just have a problem with people quoting 1 sentence without considering anything else the rules say means "RAW says I'm right" or saying that "this is the correct way to run it because it makes sense to me".
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Galetinous Cube is an exception to the rules as it takes up its entire space, where normally a creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.

I'd rule it provide total cover to target on the opposite side of it for this reason.

Then we are in complete agreement. The funny thing, coming back to the subject of this thread, is that despite that awesome cover provided, it will not allow a rogue to hide behind it. ;)
 

jayoungr

Legend
Galetinous Cube is an exception to the rules as it takes up its entire space, where normally a creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.

I'd rule it provide total cover to target on the opposite side of it for this reason.
A gelatinous cube is transparent, though, so it doesn't block line of sight.
 

Horwath

Hero
What Jeremy Crawford says cannot be any more clear than that

"A creature provides half cover, regardless of that creature's size."
After JC told that giving Rangers concentration-less Hunter's mark few times per day is overpowered and then continue to print Twilight cleric in Tasha's, I would say that his tweets are not clear on anything.
 


Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
Then we are in complete agreement. The funny thing, coming back to the subject of this thread, is that despite that awesome cover provided, it will not allow a rogue to hide behind it. ;)
You mean if an halfling could hide using a tiny creature's obscurement? It can't has it is not least one size larger than small. Neither can it hide behind another halfling.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
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.
It's a consistent baseline to use but not the only possible baseline to use. As long as you use that same baseline for all calculations you're going to at least roughly get a fair comparison.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
You mean if an halfling could hide using a tiny creature's obscurement? It can't has it is not least one size larger than small. Neither can it hide behind another halfling.

No, my answer was with regards to the Gelatinous Cube, a halfling needs a creature one size larger than him, but he could hide behind another halfling after being targeted by a reduce spell.
 

What Jeremy Crawford says cannot be any more clear than that

"A creature provides half cover, regardless of that creature's size."
New party tactic: bring bag of rats and spill them in between party and baddies at onset of combat. Half cover all around!
Or, a new way to hate summons: Druid conjures 8 tiny creatures. They are commanded to stay in front of a PC until PC attacks, in which case they move slightly aside (then maybe even back in front of PC) so baddie doesn’t get same half cover bennie from them.
Or new use for tiny familiars: to boost AC.

These exploits are pure cheese, right? Certainly not RAI.
 

Rabulias

Hero
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.
This is why the rogue makes a Dexterity (Stealth) roll and the target(s) use passive Perception or make an active Wisdom (Perception) roll to spot the rogue. Maybe the rogue is not as quiet as they hoped as they prepared to peek out and shoot. Maybe the top of their bow stuck out too far and the target caught a glimpse of it. Maybe the rogue's shadow on the opposite wall betrayed their motion to attack from the high right side. Or maybe the target is more distracted at that moment and misses seeing any clues to the rogue's intent. It's not an automatic thing - there is a skill check or contest involved, and the rogue might blow it.

@Lyxen As a counterpoint, what about the Help action in combat? Do you allow an ally using the Help action in combat to grant advantage? Even if they do it round after round to the same opponent?
 

Nefermandias

Adventurer
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... :rolleyes:
What @Horwath said isn't something absurd. Previous editions had specific rules for terrain that only provides one way cover. Arrow slits are the prime example of that type of terrain feature. Both in 3e and 4e, the arrow slit rules stated that a target standing at 5ft of the opening would benefit from 3/4 cover (superior cover in 4e) from any attacks originated from the opposite side.
That's the whole point of arrow slits...
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
New party tactic: bring bag of rats and spill them in between party and baddies at onset of combat. Half cover all around!
Or, a new way to hate summons: Druid conjures 8 tiny creatures. They are commanded to stay in front of a PC until PC attacks, in which case they move slightly aside (then maybe even back in front of PC) so baddie doesn’t get same half cover bennie from them.
Or new use for tiny familiars: to boost AC.

These exploits are pure cheese, right? Certainly not RAI.

Well, you can expect to get a lot of rats with pure cheese anyway... ;)
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
What @Horwath said isn't something absurd. Previous editions had specific rules for terrain that only provides one way cover. Arrow slits are the prime example of that type of terrain feature. Both in 3e and 4e, the arrow slit rules stated that a target standing at 5ft of the opening would benefit from 3/4 cover (superior cover in 4e) from any attacks originated from the opposite side.
That's the whole point of arrow slits...

I actually agreed for arrow slits, and actually it's the same in 5e, because it's purely based on the percentage of the body covered. So if you are standing close to an arrow slit, most of your body is still hidden, while you can target most creatures far away without penalty.

But we were talking about creatures standing between a halfling and his target, in which case, in general (and I agree there could be some edge cases depending on the size of the creatures, the numbers and their positioning), cover goes both ways.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
Cover usually work both ways. An arrow slit is certainly an exception by design, it's not a 2-way straight cut through a wall, it specifically designed to shoot outward and protect inward. I would not use such cover as proof that a cover doesn't work both ways as it's more the exception that proves the rule.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Cover usually work both ways. An arrow slit is certainly an exception by design, it's not a 2-way straight cut through a wall, it specifically designed to shoot outward and protect inward. I would not use such cover as proof that a cover doesn't work both ways as it's more the exception that proves the rule.

Then you can discuss with @Horwarth who thought the exact opposite in #357. :D

Just pointing out that even a low wall is not symmetrical for cover if one creature is close to it and the other not, for example.

As for me, I wouldn't try to guess the probability of either, I just know that both exist, and I'll rule each situation on its own merit.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top