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

[Lyxen]

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.

Exactly, this is what it's all about, being really unpredictable, making it fun, inventive, imaginative, clever tactically but in the gaming world, not on the board of a board game.

Of course, the rogue will get advantage on his first attack from stealth, but after that, he will change positions, hide behind something else, attack from a different angle.

And if he can't, well, it's not impossible, just much harder to get the drop on an opponent. Unless, of course, the opponent is very dumb and cannot figure it out, which then shifts into actual roleplaying on the battlefield, and playing characters and adversaries with their strengths and weaknesses, mental and physical, telling a story and making it feel real, not cardboardy.

 

[lingual]

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.

Don't need a pillar or tree. Just make the rogue carry a towel. I wonder if that would work in some RAW interpretation. I have seen people vociferously argue using a rat (enemy within 5 feet) on your shoulder to guarantee sneak attack...

 

[Oofta]

Don't need a pillar or tree. Just make the rogue carry a towel. I wonder if that would work in some RAW interpretation. I have seen people vociferously argue using a rat (enemy within 5 feet) on your shoulder to guarantee sneak attack...

You mean I can't just get advantage by playing peek-a-boo? What kind of tyrant DM are you?

 

[lingual]

You mean I can't just get advantage by playing peek-a-boo? What kind of tyrant DM are you?

I call for a stealth check. A large beach towel gets advantage. Small gym towels get disadvantage

 

[jayoungr]

That moves along to the rules for skill checks though. If something is impossible, you automatically fail.

Agreed. But it's not like shooting multiple times from a single location without your target knowing exactly where you are every time is impossible. Several ways it could work have already been described on this thread: you could be attacking from behind, or the target might be too distracted by other combatants to see where you are, or you could be switching up which side of the pillar (or whatever) you are shooting from.

other factors could also make hiding an impossible check, depending on the situation.

Also agreed. But I don't believe the intent is for hiding to be taken off the table as an option if you start the combat in the open where the target can see you, which was my DM's position.

 

[Lyxen]

Agreed. But it's not like shooting multiple times from a single location without your target knowing exactly where you are every time is impossible. Several ways it could work have already been described on this thread: you could be attacking from behind, or the target might be too distracted by other combatants to see where you are, or you could be switching up which side of the pillar (or whatever) you are shooting from.

It's not impossible, just harder than if you were changing location, hence the use of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. If it works you can justify by using the descriptions above, but there is a higher likelihood that it won't, that's all.

Also agreed. But I don't believe the intent is for hiding to be taken off the table as an option if you start the combat in the open where the target can see you, which was my DM's position.

While I certainly don't disagree about your position, there is another factor that we are taking into account at least at our table, which is knowing exactly how many adversaries are there and what they look like. If you see a figure looking like a rogue in the open, and you see him dashing towards the now extremely famous pillar ( ), you will be watching that pillar, and for me this means that it would be more difficult for the rogue to be undetected.

Whereas when it's really a surprise attack or infiltration, and you have no idea that a rogue is there, you might suspect something but not watch specifically for the rogue (that oyu have clearly seen in the scenario above).

This is what I mean about it being much more than a simple tactical boardgame, take into account everything that a Character/NPC/Monster knows, but not more, makes (at least IM(NS)HO) for a much more interesting and rich game.

 

[Plaguescarred]

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.

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.

The Devs specifically mention you keep the benefit of being hidden for the attack so they might see you, but you still get advantage. Being able to assume one's location doesn't make it less unseen and unheard (hidden). You might have a good idea where it is, but not when it will attack and from where exactly in 5 feet about.

 

[Charlaquin]

When you consider the times a Rogue does not get SA (5%, 10%, 20%?) and action surge; I don't think there are any levels that a Rogue using the attack action will outdamage a fighter using the attack action over a day of combat, unless the fighter you are comparing it to is a pure defensive style.

That was kinda my point. Rogues are about on par with fighters in terms of at-will damage (so before accounting for the boost from Action Surge and Battle Master maneuvers), if they get sneak attack every turn. If there’s a 5, 10, even 20% chance of them failing to land a sneak attack, they will under-perform compared to fighters, and even if they land sneak attack every turn, fighters will still do higher damage per round on average thanks to their limited resource abilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There an abuse of the stupidity of the NPCs, as I can absolutely guarantee that if a DM was doing exactly the same thing to the same PCs, they would complain about it.



It does not work that way. To target someone, you need to see him. When you are behind the pilar, maybe your target does not see you, but you can't see it either and you can't attack him. If he is watching the pilar because he knows you are behind it (because you always do, always hiding there), when you come out to target then attack him, you will no longer be unseen and therefore not have advantage.

See, the reasoning works both ways here, which is why the stealth rules are, even more than almost anything in the rules, guidelines, and the DM can do exactly what he feels right.

Which is why, in turn, I have been careful in this thread to explain that at our tables, a rogue will get disadvantage on his stealth check if he always tries to hide in the same place, and their adversaries will get advantage on their (passive) perception if they are clever enough to notice the pattern. Nothing in the rules prevents you from having a rogue always hide in the same position, just as nothing prevents us from doing it our way, because we think it makes more sense, but also because it tends to push the player to act in a clever fashion, project himself in the game world and be imaginative rather than always parrot the same thing and just roll dices for max damage. To each his own.

Nah, no player I know would complain about NPCs using stealth in combat. It's a normal part of the game.

 

[jayoungr]

It's not impossible, just harder than if you were changing location, hence the use of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. If it works you can justify by using the descriptions above, but there is a higher likelihood that it won't, that's all.

So the DM can up the difficulty of the stealth check if he/she thinks it's warranted. I don't believe the PHB ever explicitly says what the difficulty should be, although I'm guessing a lot of DMs use the target's passive Perception as the DC.

While I certainly don't disagree about your position, there is another factor that we are taking into account at least at our table, which is knowing exactly how many adversaries are there and what they look like.

I don't feel that this is a major factor. Knowing the number and appearance of your attackers doesn't mean you know where they all are at every moment, especially if one of them is actively trying to evade your notice (stealth check).

If you see a figure looking like a rogue in the open, and you see him dashing towards the now extremely famous pillar ( ), you will be watching that pillar, and for me this means that it would be more difficult for the rogue to be undetected.

In a typical fight, that means you will be keeping as much of an eye on the pillar as you can while defending yourself against one or more folks coming at you with sharp pointy things. If you're truly that fixated on watching the pillar, it seems to me the DM should be giving them advantage to hit you.

(Also, as a side point, I keep wondering whether people are picturing a room with a single pillar and no other nearby sources of cover, or a more cluttered environment.)

Whereas when it's really a surprise attack or infiltration, and you have no idea that a rogue is there, you might suspect something but not watch specifically for the rogue (that oyu have clearly seen in the scenario above).

I don't believe the difference between "You don't know the rogue exists" and "You know the rogue exists but you don't know where they are in the heat of combat" is meaningful enough to require a mechanical distinction. But other DMs might rule differently.