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

[Ovinomancer]

Nope, never said that, what I said is that the adventurers and monsters that get played and that get surprised every round by the same rogue/goblin popping out at the exact same place are dumb. But it can be really funny to play dumb characters, I know, one of my best LARPs (continued as tabletop adventures) was when I was playing a really, really stupid Goblin.

It was not a comment about the game or the players, but about the characters being played.

No. You don't get to say you're not calling my approach dumb by trying to claim that it's not the approach, but the fictional things in the approach that are dumb. This isn't, at all, an argument that flies. If my approach requires the fiction to be dumb in your opinion, I do not see how you can reify the fiction into something independent and separate from my approach. This is still calling my approach dumb.

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath for an apology or anything.

First off, rogues were already one of my favourite classes when they were still called thieves and certainly did not get their backstab every round.

What on Earth does this have to do with the price of tea in China. Different editions are different games. This is like saying that you remember how to play Monopoly, thank you very much, so Risk should be similar. I'm not exaggerating here -- the editions are actually different games. That they have some similarities, and share tropes, is nice, but it's not carte blanche to drag old game sensibilities into the new game and declare that the ground truth of the new rules.

Second, there are already tons of ways for a rogue to get their sneak attack, and even to get advantage on it if the players are playing them cleverly - which a rogue should be anyway.

Okay. So? The existence of other options has zero bearing on the existence of this one. For instance, my PC's ability to swing a sword has no impact on their ability to poke with a spear. They are separate cases -- I don't get told I shouldn't be able to swing a sword because I can still poke with a spear. This is the same. That a rogue has other options available doesn't invalidate THIS option.

Finally, I'm not preventing a rogue from trying to hide in the same place all the time. I'm just pointing out that being that predictable and unimaginative will make it much easier for adversaries to know exactly where he is hidden, therefore (as per the rules), him getting disadvantage, and therefore not negating the perception/stealth context, just making the game and the story more interesting.

Huh, you'd think that, if this were intended, the rules would mention something like this, yes? This is your problem, not a general problem. It's that you have a preformed imagining of what happens, and so when the PC tries to hide behind the same pillar, it conflicts with your preformed imaging. And that's fine. The problem is when you then blame the rules for this, and insist they need to be changed to make more sense. Except, the rules work just fine if you imagine something else. And that something else isn't even outlandish or weird, it's just imagining a chaotic battlefield where a creature skilled at being sneaky manages to pull one over on another combatant not engaged directly with the sneaky creature. That they have enough variability in their 5 square feet of space to vary timing and location enough to keep being skilled enough to get the drop on their opponent.

And this is not contrary to the mechanics, I'm actually using more of them, to enhance the story, the fight, and the imagination of the players instead of relying sorely on the mechanical aspect of the DPR of the rogue. Because it's a storytelling and roleplaying game, not only a combat game.

The claim you're using more mechanics and this is therefore better suggests that you should make sure to have advantage or disadvantage used on every single roll. It's a silly argument. More is not better. And the claim that you have the high ground on better imagination seems contraindicated in that my argument is based on "follow the mechanics, then imagine the outcome." There's no lack of imagining going on in my game, just as the creatures in my game aren't dumb -- instead there are desperate battles of skill and awareness and a dynamic use of space and timing to gain the upper hand. The idea that you have the high horse to lecture me about storytelling and roleplaying is, frankly, insulting to a high degree. Neither of these things are impacted at all by allowing a creature to attempt to hide in the same place in subsequent rounds of combat without penalty.

How do I know this? Because I used to adamantly hold your position. I used to apply disadvantage to hiding in the same place, for the same arguments you're making. Then, I realized I was making work for myself because I was trying to force the game into my opinions. So, I quit. I also don't think at all about metagaming, nor do I care about it anymore. I just altered how I built challenges so that metagaming is not an issue. This is very easy to do -- don't build encounters where the challenge is entirely based on making the players pretend they don't know the gimmick. And, for the topic at hand, don't imagine creatures with AEGIS.

 

[Oofta]

My thoughts on this?

First, D&D combat is not particularly realistic. It's assumed that everyone is paying attention to every other attacking creature. That troll being attacked by 6 PCs? If that troll has an ogre buddy next to him so either one of them could be targeted? If no one is hidden while attacking, barring other special circumstances, no one gets advantage on it. No flanking, he notices the sharpshooter archer 600 ft away launching an arrow and the guy swinging a sword at his face and the guy behind him trying to bash their head in from behind with a hammer. Not to mention the other 3 doing whatever attacks their doing whether with magic like scorching ray or any other attack.

To say that's not particularly realistic is kind of an understatement.

If the wizard cast improved invisibility on the barbarian, the barbarian gets advantage. Not because the barbarian isn't screaming his battle cry, not because they are hidden, but because until the troll feels that axe biting in, they had no way of knowing it was coming. Even though they knew exactly where the barbarian was.

So when it comes to that hidden rogue, it just depends on how the DM wants to run it. If a rogue is hidden behind a pillar, I'm going to assume the rogue doesn't have special missiles that phase through the column. They don't have X-Ray vision. They don't have magic guided arrows that curve around the pillar. They have to physically be able to see the troll, take a moment to aim, time it so they aren't going to hit an ally and fire. It's not instantaneous.

Assuming the troll knew the rogue was behind the pillar he has about as much time to see and react he would have had with the archer that was in plain sight that decided to shift targets from his ogre buddy to him. It's not that he necessarily knew or saw that the archer was changing targets, it's because he knew the archer was there and was a threat. The troll knows where the rogue is and that they will be a threat.

A more realistic system would distinguish between physical armor blocking attacks and dextrously avoiding attacks because you see the attack coming, but that's not D&D. In my game, if you know an attacker is there and can clearly see them when they attack, there is no advantage on the attack.

 

[lingual]

I love how these threads devolve into purposeful boolean and extreme interpretation of someone else's rulings.

As for the OP, I would allow the DM some latitude here. If you are fighting an intelligent, ancient creature in their own lair - I could totally get it that hiding in combat would be difficult or just ruled not possible in that situation. I would have just bumped the difficulty up. They are wrong though about hiding in combat NEVER working.

I also often use the "works once" and disadvantage for cases like this. If you are fighting a dumb hill.giant in a pitched battle? Maybe it works 2 or 3 times from the same spot. Fighting an alerted and wary mastermind rogue NPC 1 on 1 n her lair? Probably doesn't work at all - or at least there is some fudging of the difficulty.

The rules are very vague. At the very least, they could have included some example situations on how they would run it. And I doubt it's a "works every time even if you are hiding behind the same tree every time" or "it never works at all no matter what.".

 

[Ovinomancer]

And this goes to show that there are many ways to play the game, because my preference is to to exactly the opposite, by the way, as advocated by the PH: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

When such a situation presents itself, I think about what would make the best story, what would look the coolest, be the most memorable, what would please the player so much to have happen to his character and remember. And I make THAT call, and I will handwave off all the rules and mechanics that get in the way of this. Or better yet, I will use them to make it happen, because honestly the rules are more guidelines than anything in this edition.

And the way I'm playing them in the case of stealth is perfectly in line with the RAW and the intent of the game.

I love this argument. It's so tasty. "RAW says I can ignore or change the rules. So, I've change them, or ignored them, or partially ignored them, but, no worries, it's still RAW!"

However, how you claim "intent" is very unclear to me as the designers are on record stating the intent and it doesn't align with your approach. The only way to claim this is to say that the "intent" is whatever you want because of the bit you quoted, but then, you can play Monopoly, call it D&D, and still claim you're playing with the "intent" of the rules!

That is a big "if" and for me the answer is clearly no. If you think that it has, then you will have to prove it, through at the very least designers' intent rather than "there is this combo that looks good but relies on circumstances (like having a place to hide) and therefore it is part of the design of the character".

The designers are on record saying this is the intent. The rules support it, clearly. There is an action for hiding in combat. There is a rule for unseen attackers. The rogue class gets a special benefit for attacking unseen. There are rules for contests between a creature trying to hide and a creature trying to detect it. There's an entire framework of rules that go directly to resolving the question of "what happens if I try to hide in combat." I mean, you ask for evidence, but it apparently must be in the form of a printed rule that says, "Lyxen, you can hide in combat and make an attack using the unseen attacker rules." I mean, there's a rule for what happens if you attack while unseen -- the attacker sees you after the attack! How can this happen if you can't do it to begin with?!

Again, many ways to play the game, none is better than another, but if the mechanics are so much more important than the fluff, I will still say that you are not playing the best edition of the game for this. 4e and 3e/PF are much more suited to that style of play.

Ah, now people with certain approaches would do better to play other games, because this one best aligns with @Lyxen's point of view. Just ask them!

 

[Ovinomancer]

My thoughts on this?

First, D&D combat is not particularly realistic. It's assumed that everyone is paying attention to every other attacking creature. That troll being attacked by 6 PCs? If that troll has an ogre buddy next to him so either one of them could be targeted? If no one is hidden while attacking, barring other special circumstances, no one gets advantage on it. No flanking, he notices the sharpshooter archer 600 ft away launching an arrow and the guy swinging a sword at his face and the guy behind him trying to bash their head in from behind with a hammer. Not to mention the other 3 doing whatever attacks their doing whether with magic like scorching ray or any other attack.

To say that's not particularly realistic is kind of an understatement.

If the wizard cast improved invisibility on the barbarian, the barbarian gets advantage. Not because the barbarian isn't screaming his battle cry, not because they are hidden, but because until the troll feels that axe biting in, they had no way of knowing it was coming. Even though they knew exactly where the barbarian was.

So when it comes to that hidden rogue, it just depends on how the DM wants to run it. If a rogue is hidden behind a pillar, I'm going to assume the rogue doesn't have special missiles that phase through the column. They don't have X-Ray vision. They don't have magic guided arrows that curve around the pillar. They have to physically be able to see the troll, take a moment to aim, time it so they aren't going to hit an ally and fire. It's not instantaneous.

Assuming the troll knew the rogue was behind the pillar he has about as much time to see and react he would have had with the archer that was in plain sight that decided to shift targets from his ogre buddy to him. It's not that he necessarily knew or saw that the archer was changing targets, it's because he knew the archer was there and was a threat. The troll knows where the rogue is and that they will be a threat.

A more realistic system would distinguish between physical armor blocking attacks and dextrously avoiding attacks because you see the attack coming, but that's not D&D. In my game, if you know an attacker is there and can clearly see them when they attack, there is no advantage on the attack.

True. Too bad there's not a way to resolve this conundrum -- does the troll see the rogue in enough time for it to make a difference? If only there was some kind of contest, maybe pitting an ability check against a passive ability score. Oh! Maybe it could be modified by proficiencies! Like, maybe, just spitballing here, we could call one proficiency Stealth, and tie it to DEX! And, on the other side, we could maybe make it a WIS ability check, and maybe a proficiency called... oh! Perception! So, we could assume that, since the troll is constantly paying attention, we need to represent this. Maybe we could call it a passive Perception check? Like, start with a 10, and add the bonuses for WIS and proficiency in Perception, if they have that. Then, the other one can just roll DEX (Stealth) and see if they beat that passive Perception score! If they do, they sneakily get the drop, but if they don't, they don't. Oh, if only the designers had thought this one out and provided some way to deal with this thorny problem. Probably best, though, as there would still be a lot of people that thing that "alert" means that there's no chance a creature could miss a gnat at a mile. Yes, that's a lot of work that would be wasted.

 

[Oofta]

True. Too bad there's not a way to resolve this conundrum -- does the troll see the rogue in enough time for it to make a difference? If only there was some kind of contest, maybe pitting an ability check against a passive ability score. Oh! Maybe it could be modified by proficiencies! Like, maybe, just spitballing here, we could call one proficiency Stealth, and tie it to DEX! And, on the other side, we could maybe make it a WIS ability check, and maybe a proficiency called... oh! Perception! So, we could assume that, since the troll is constantly paying attention, we need to represent this. Maybe we could call it a passive Perception check? Like, start with a 10, and add the bonuses for WIS and proficiency in Perception, if they have that. Then, the other one can just roll DEX (Stealth) and see if they beat that passive Perception score! If they do, they sneakily get the drop, but if they don't, they don't. Oh, if only the designers had thought this one out and provided some way to deal with this thorny problem. Probably best, though, as there would still be a lot of people that thing that "alert" means that there's no chance a creature could miss a gnat at a mile. Yes, that's a lot of work that would be wasted.

The first time a hidden rogue can be clearly seen from the exact same location in my games they will get advantage. Just not the second time.

If only there were rules in the PHB that says something along the lines of "... under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden ...". If only. Feel free to rule differently at your table, it's perfectly in accordance with the rules. It's a preference and stylistic distinction.

No amount of arguing is going to change that this is the purview of the DM.

 

[Lyxen]

No. You don't get to say you're not calling my approach dumb by trying to claim that it's not the approach, but the fictional things in the approach that are dumb. This isn't, at all, an argument that flies. If my approach requires the fiction to be dumb in your opinion, I do not see how you can reify the fiction into something independent and separate from my approach. This is still calling my approach dumb.

Believe it or not, I don't call the approach dumb, I call it purely mechanistic, which is not what I'm intestered in about the game, although I understand that you are, as are many other players.

But the result of that approach is that you don't encourage thinking about the situation in the game world, only about thinking it tactically as in a board game. And in the end, the characters end up being as dumb as board game pieces, that's all. It does not mean that the game or the players themselves are dumb, they can be very clever in the application of that mechanistic tactical gaming, it's just not the same game, and see below about this.

What on Earth does this have to do with the price of tea in China. Different editions are different games.

Not at all. I have played almost exactly the same adventures in all editions of the game, and although technically BECMI or AD&D are very different from 5e, the adventures can be transposed almost instantly. This is because I play the game as it was designed, as a roleplaying game where (as per the PH once more): "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama".

The only edition that I had real problem with was 4e because it was so restrictive that I could not play the same adventures anymore, which, again, is pointed out by the Devs themselves: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."

This is like saying that you remember how to play Monopoly, thank you very much, so Risk should be similar. I'm not exaggerating here -- the editions are actually different games. That they have some similarities, and share tropes, is nice, but it's not carte blanche to drag old game sensibilities into the new game and declare that the ground truth of the new rules.

The rules are not the core of the game. Although they are an important part of the game, they are just there to support it.

Okay. So? The existence of other options has zero bearing on the existence of this one. For instance, my PC's ability to swing a sword has no impact on their ability to poke with a spear. They are separate cases -- I don't get told I shouldn't be able to swing a sword because I can still poke with a spear. This is the same. That a rogue has other options available doesn't invalidate THIS option.

And again, I don't invalidate it, I just make it less effective because, once more, it's a roleplaying game (The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery) not a boardgame, and that an adventurer that just was ambushed and received a devastating attack from a shadowy figure that has retreated just behind the lone barrel that he popped out from 1 second before, and is not specifically watching that barrel again is, yes, terminally dumb, and should expect to die soon.

Huh, you'd think that, if this were intended, the rules would mention something like this, yes? This is your problem, not a general problem. It's that you have a preformed imagining of what happens, and so when the PC tries to hide behind the same pillar, it conflicts with your preformed imaging. And that's fine. The problem is when you then blame the rules for this, and insist they need to be changed to make more sense.

First, I don't blame the rule, and second, I'm not changing anything. If anything, you are the one insisting to play using only some rules, but let me remind you of a few other rules, just as valid:

• Ignoring the dice: "With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors... This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities."
• Advantage: "Previous actions (whether taken by the character making the attempt or some other creature) improve the chances of success." So if a player is telling me that he is watching that pillar for the rogue that he KNOWS that the rogue is hidden behind because he is an unimaginative idiot, the player will get advantage.
• Disadvantage: "Some aspect of the environment makes success less likely" because there is only one damn pillar in that area and everyone knows that is where the rogue went.

All of these are official rules, and just as valid as anything in the description of the rogue and its technical abilities. I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring the open-endedness of the game by restricting yourself to a limited set of technical rules.

Except, the rules work just fine if you imagine something else. And that something else isn't even outlandish or weird, it's just imagining a chaotic battlefield where a creature skilled at being sneaky manages to pull one over on another combatant not engaged directly with the sneaky creature. That they have enough variability in their 5 square feet of space to vary timing and location enough to keep being skilled enough to get the drop on their opponent.

And that opponent is dumb, don't forget it, and not able to take the slightest countermeasure, while at the same time keeping track of all invisible creatures on the battlefield... sigh.

The claim you're using more mechanics and this is therefore better suggests that you should make sure to have advantage or disadvantage used on every single roll. It's a silly argument. More is not better. And the claim that you have the high ground on better imagination seems contraindicated in that my argument is based on "follow the mechanics, then imagine the outcome." There's no lack of imagining going on in my game, just as the creatures in my game aren't dumb -- instead there are desperate battles of skill and awareness and a dynamic use of space and timing to gain the upper hand. The idea that you have the high horse to lecture me about storytelling and roleplaying is, frankly, insulting to a high degree. Neither of these things are impacted at all by allowing a creature to attempt to hide in the same place in subsequent rounds of combat without penalty.

It's a clear lack of imagination and creativity, and so silly visually that it's never been done in any movie and book of the kind, genre or not, because it looks and feels dumb. The only way it works is for comedy effect on really dumb creatures, and even then whoever is writing the book/movie is clever enough to have the attacks at least pop out from various places.

Now, technically the game allows it, so if you want to play a purely technical game, have fun as much as you want, but don't pretend that it's roleplaying or storytelling at this stage.

How do I know this? Because I used to adamantly hold your position. I used to apply disadvantage to hiding in the same place, for the same arguments you're making. Then, I realized I was making work for myself because I was trying to force the game into my opinions. So, I quit.

And why is it bad to have a game that matches your opinion and your style of playing ? Especially if it's shared with your players, which is certainly the case at our tables.

It's the DM's role anyway to describe the world the way he sees it. Hopefully, it will please the players, who can exercise their cleverness in bringing life to that world.

I also don't think at all about metagaming, nor do I care about it anymore. I just altered how I built challenges so that metagaming is not an issue. This is very easy to do -- don't build encounters where the challenge is entirely based on making the players pretend they don't know the gimmick. And, for the topic at hand, don't imagine creatures with AEGIS.

Then don't imagine creatures that, after receiving a devastating sneak attack and see the rogue retreat behind the exact same pillar, will behave as if nothing happened. Goldfish memory at best.

 

[Lyxen]

I love this argument. It's so tasty. "RAW says I can ignore or change the rules. So, I've change them, or ignored them, or partially ignored them, but, no worries, it's still RAW!"

Thanks for confirming that you are changed them and ignored them by forgetting about advantage/disadvantage. I don't, I simply use more rules in combination for a richer game, that's all.

However, how you claim "intent" is very unclear to me as the designers are on record stating the intent and it doesn't align with your approach.

Prove it. Show me where the designers went on record to state that rogues shoudl have advantage once per round on their attack. I'm sure I'll be waiting a very long time.

The designers are on record saying this is the intent.

Prove it. Give me the quote. I'll be waiting.

 

[Lyxen]

True. Too bad there's not a way to resolve this conundrum -- does the troll see the rogue in enough time for it to make a difference? If only there was some kind of contest, maybe pitting an ability check against a passive ability score. Oh! Maybe it could be modified by proficiencies! Like, maybe, just spitballing here, we could call one proficiency Stealth, and tie it to DEX! And, on the other side, we could maybe make it a WIS ability check, and maybe a proficiency called... oh! Perception! So, we could assume that, since the troll is constantly paying attention, we need to represent this. Maybe we could call it a passive Perception check? Like, start with a 10, and add the bonuses for WIS and proficiency in Perception, if they have that. Then, the other one can just roll DEX (Stealth) and see if they beat that passive Perception score! If they do, they sneakily get the drop, but if they don't, they don't. Oh, if only the designers had thought this one out and provided some way to deal with this thorny problem. Probably best, though, as there would still be a lot of people that thing that "alert" means that there's no chance a creature could miss a gnat at a mile. Yes, that's a lot of work that would be wasted.

And we are not wasting any rule, but if only there were rules that would explain what happens when a rogue is dumb enough to hide in exactly the same place every single time, a place that everyone is now watching, making the circumstances particularly difficult for him to do so. Oh wait, there is one, right there.

 

[NotAYakk]

You normally have to be unseen to try to hide. Wether you succeed or not, you remain unseen as it comes from other circumstances already in place, be it invisible, heavily obscured, blinded etc.

When you hide behind a pillar, you are unseen and unheard. That people can assume your location doesn't make you less able to become unheard. All it does is facilitate guessing your possible location when there's less location you can be in. But Knowing one's location is not a clause preventing it to hide, it's being clearly seen or making noise that does.

If you are hidden behind a pillar when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses as per Unseen Attacker & Target. But the advantage on the attack roll still apply even if you were not hidden, because you are originally unseen to even try to hide.

In order to make an attack on a foe, you have to see them.

In order to see them, you have to stick your head out.

If you stick your head out (and eventually your weapon) in the same spot multiple times in a row, enemies will know it is coming, and will see your head before you make the attack, even though you where hidden before hand.

If, on the other hand, you can find multiple spots to "stick your head out", that won't work.

It is true that making an attack makes you no longer hidden. But it is well within the DM's purview to decide other things make you no longer hidden. In this case, I'm saying "repeatedly attacking from the same spot" makes you no longer hidden before the repeated attack occurs.

If on round 1 you leaned around the corner and shot, you where hidden, it works. You then hid.
Round 2 you did the same thing. The enemy sees you before you shoot (depending on how distracted they are, there may be a check for this). You then hid.
Round 3, you climbed up above the door, and swung down and shot them. This was not where they expected you to be, so you are hidden for the shot.
Round 4, you shoot out of a window instead of the door. Also, not where they expected you to be. You stay hidden until after you shoot.

All I'm saying is Hidden isn't magical. It can be extraordinary. If you telegraph your attacks and position, you won't get advantage. So just don't telegraph your attacks.