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

[Lyxen]

The Devs specifically mention you keep the benefit of being hidden for the attack so they might see you, but you still get advantage.

It's not exactly what they said, compare to the exact rules:

• If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack...
• If you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.
  

And, in the end, the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, so if the DM rules that, to make an attack, you need to come out of hiding (for example moving to the side of the pillar), then you are no longer hidden, and therefore you don't get the advantage.

Now, if firing from the undergrowth, where you can be hidden and not move at all to attack, I would, as a DM, be more generous. All of this is 100% RAW, the rules are fuzzy on purpose so that they can be interpreted by the DM according to the circumstances.

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.

Yes, but as a DM, I want to reward players who think like their characters and project themselves in the game world. So if a character does nothing with regards to the rogue, I might give the latter advantage, but if a player says "I'm very wary of the rogue, I try to keep track of him", I will certainly take that into account as well. Call it a flourish if you will (and therefore allowed even by the strictest of RAW combat rules), but the rules actually encourage that as well.

And, I hasten to say, both ways, it might be easier for another threat to surprise the player above, because he is focussing more on the rogue. Thanks to the fuzziness of the rules, you get much more interesting combat, more roleplaying and intrigue, because the first rogue might just be a distraction, and so on and so forth.

A player actually lost a duel that way in a campaign. It was Amber DRPG, but the principle was the same, the player kept looking to the audience of the duel to see how they were reacting to the situation and the insults, and although he was the superior fighter, he still lost the duel. It's all in the narrative, and the good thing is that 5e supports it RAW out of the box, if you use all the mechanics.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

I'm still using it RAW, but advantage and disadvantage are perfect to take into account changing conditions and attitude, that's all.

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).

And the Devs tell you otherwise about the intent of the tame, see the podcast about stealth.

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.

My belief is that would be much too strong, as the hypothesis is that "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around," but it might give a bonus to another, totally unseen attacker.

(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.)

Because, in a more cluttered environment, a rogue could (and should) keep changing positions.

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.

See my other example, if there's a visible rogue, a player might specifically declare that he's watching for the rogue. If he doesn't know, then he can't take that kind of countermeasure, or will not think about positioning himself so that other members of his team cover various angles.

Again, YCMV, but I like intelligent protagonists in my games.

 

[Oofta]

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

Great. Now I'm envisioning a an overweight Greek guy in a speedo playing peek-a-boo using a napkin.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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...

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal approves, both of the towel idea and this argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I can assume, then, that you apply disadvantage to the fighter who happens to attack a second time from the same space and with the same weapon, because, well, the opponent is expecting it?

No? I suppose "that's different" is in the offing? It's not, though. The only difference here is that you're willing to see the myriad possible fictions to explain the fighter making a different attack, or the flow of melee, or somesuch, but you've made up your mind that there's only one way for the hiding PC to attack from the same space. This isn't a verisimilitude problem. It's not a RAW problem. It's only a problem with how you envision the fiction, and the fact that you've already decided on a fiction and want the rules to follow that fiction. If they don't, time to alter the rules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I can assume, then, that you apply disadvantage to the fighter who happens to attack a second time from the same space and with the same weapon, because, well, the opponent is expecting it?

No? I suppose "that's different" is in the offing? It's not, though. The only difference here is that you're willing to see the myriad possible fictions to explain the fighter making a different attack, or the flow of melee, or somesuch, but you've made up your mind that there's only one way for the hiding PC to attack from the same space. This isn't a verisimilitude problem. It's not a RAW problem. It's only a problem with how you envision the fiction, and the fact that you've already decided on a fiction and want the rules to follow that fiction. If they don't, time to alter the rules.

My understanding is that the disadvantage some would impose is on the Dec(Stealth) check to hide again in the exact same spot, not on the subsequent attack from that spot.

 

[jayoungr]

And the Devs tell you otherwise about the intent of the tame, see the podcast about stealth.

Can you summarize? (Also not sure what you mean by "tame" in this context.)

My belief is that would be much too strong, as the hypothesis is that "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around"

Oh, I agree. That comment was largely facetious. My main point is that during combat, you typically can't keep perfect attention on all things all the time. There's almost certainly going to be a moment during a six-second round when your attention is elsewhere and the rogue can take advantage of that to disappear. You also don't have 100% of your brain capacity available to ponder logically where the rogue might be hiding. You have to fit all that in between fighting off your other attackers.

On the other hand, if you're not distracted by other things, then I think it's perfectly valid for the DM to tell the rogue that hiding is going to be extremely difficult at best.

See my other example, if there's a visible rogue, a player might specifically declare that he's watching for the rogue. If he doesn't know, then he can't take that kind of countermeasure, or will not think about positioning himself so that other members of his team cover various angles.

It's on the player to take those steps, though. If he doesn't do any of those things, then I don't think the DM needs to make any adjustments. (ETA) And if the PC is the rogue, then the DM will likely change the tactics of the target. But it doesn't, and IMHO shouldn't, affect the rolls made or the difficulty thereof.

Again, YCMV, but I like intelligent protagonists in my games.

Being distracted during combat doesn't make you unintelligent.

If you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.

And, in the end, the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, so if the DM rules that, to make an attack, you need to come out of hiding (for example moving to the side of the pillar), then you are no longer hidden, and therefore you don't get the advantage.

As I said upthread, I don't believe that popping out of cover to shoot an arrow constitutes approaching a creature. That rule sounds like it's designed to cover a case where a rogue hides and then sneaks up behind a target to backstab (melee attack).

 

[Charlaquin]

My understanding is that the disadvantage some would impose is on the Dec(Stealth) check to hide again in the exact same spot, not on the subsequent attack from that spot.

That seems more reasonable to me. It’s ruling that you can’t hide in the same spot twice, or that you can’t get advantage on the attack if you do hide in the same spot twice that I object to. Circumstantial advantage and disadvantage is something I generally think don’t get used enough, so this is a ruling I wouldn’t mind too much as a player.

 

[Oofta]

I can assume, then, that you apply disadvantage to the fighter who happens to attack a second time from the same space and with the same weapon, because, well, the opponent is expecting it?

No? I suppose "that's different" is in the offing? It's not, though. The only difference here is that you're willing to see the myriad possible fictions to explain the fighter making a different attack, or the flow of melee, or somesuch, but you've made up your mind that there's only one way for the hiding PC to attack from the same space. This isn't a verisimilitude problem. It's not a RAW problem. It's only a problem with how you envision the fiction, and the fact that you've already decided on a fiction and want the rules to follow that fiction. If they don't, time to alter the rules.

Nobody is altering rules, just making rulings that makes sense to the DM and the group. The fact that you don't seem to be able to accept that different people have different preferences and implementations while still following the letter of the rules is not my problem.

But this is just more "I'm right, you're wrong". There is no one true way.

 

[Lyxen]

Can you summarize? (Also not sure what you mean by "tame" in this context.)

I meant "game".

As for the Dev's intent, here it is, about keeping track of invisible opponents: "A group is going to be on really firm ground if they just decide so. We just assume combatants always know where invisible characters are, unless those characters have hidden themselves by making a Dexterity style check, your saying when the monsters are hidden or know anyone."

But even I'm not playing that way, at our tables, we try to take into account different factors, and especially the intelligent actions of adversaries, and their declaration, it usually makes for a better story.

Oh, I agree. That comment was largely facetious. My main point is that during combat, you typically can't keep perfect attention on all things all the time. There's almost certainly going to be a moment during a six-second round when your attention is elsewhere and the rogue can take advantage of that to disappear. You also don't have 100% of your brain capacity available to ponder logically where the rogue might be hiding. You have to fit all that in between fighting off your other attackers.

On the other hand, if you're not distracted by other things, then I think it's perfectly valid for the DM to tell the rogue that hiding is going to be extremely difficult.

Indeed, all of this is circumstancial, the nice thing about 5e is that the DM has very simple means to take it all into account, adv/normal/dis is quick and easy.

It's on the player to take those steps, though. If he doesn't do any of those things, then I don't think the DM needs to make any adjustments. (ETA And if the PC is the rogue, then the DM will likely change the tactics of the target. But it doesn't, and IMHO shouldn't, affect the rolls made or the difficulty thereof.



Being distracted during combat doesn't make you unintelligent.

Not watching a rogue with devastating attacks should remove you quickly from the gene pool.

As I said above, I don't believe that popping out of cover to shoot an arrow constitutes approaching a creature. That rule sounds like it's designed to cover a case where a rogue hides and then sneaks up behind a target to backstab (melee attack).

It covers any type of activity, basically, but the thing is that you cannot only hide if the target cannot see you clearly anyway. If you pop out from behind a pillar, and the target is watching that pillar because - even though you are silent and all - he knows that it's the only place that you can be hidden behind, you will no longer be hidden.