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

[Li Shenron]

I was startled to have a rules argument tonight with a group that I've been playing with since the start of 5E. For context, we were in the lair of Xipe, the oni, in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. Three of the party were in melee with the oni, while two others (human warlock and halfling rogue) were attacking at range. This room doesn't appear on the map and has no boxed text description; the only hint about its furnishings is in the list of treasure, which mentions an ornamental table.

The rogue kept missing her attacks, and since I've played a rogue in several other games, I suggested that she hide so as to get advantage on the shot. (Note, before anyone asks: Yes, I also mentioned the new Aim action from Tasha's, but that's not what caused the argument). The DM, backed up by her husband, insisted that it's impossible to hide during combat. They pointed to the section on page 177 of the PHB that says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" and said that since Xipe could see the rogue, that meant she couldn't hide.

I said rogues were intended to be able to hide during combat and that's what the use of cunning action to hide as a bonus action was designed for. But I was so caught off guard and so amazed at their position that I was reduced to the lamest possible argument--"Well, my other DMs have always let me do it." To which the answer was, of course, "Your other DMs are wrong."

So ... am I and the three other DMs that I've played rogues under just wrong about this?

Is it up for interpretation?

If I'm right, or if there's at least a case to be made that I'm right, what other rule can I point to that will convince this DM?

(To be clear, I'm not playing the rogue in this particular game, but it will end soon, and if this is going to be their way to play it, that could stop me from ever rolling a rogue at this table.)

Bonus extra question

I could see a case that there was nothing in the room suitable for the rogue to hide behind, although it seems like the living quarters of a Large creature should provide hiding opportunities for a Small PC. But the rogue is a halfling and the warlock, who was next to her, is a human. And Lightfoot halflings have the "Naturally Stealthy" ability, which says this: "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." So it seems to me that the halfling rogue should have been able to hide behind the human warlock even if there was nothing else suitable in the area. If you would allow a rogue to hide during combat, would you allow a halfling rogue who is attacking from range to hide behind a human?

Yes it is up to interpretation, otherwise there would not be a discussion thread every couple of weeks on the same topic.

Most importantly, the fundamental "rule zero" of ability checks is that the DM decides if you get one. So there is even no need to discuss theoretically, you can make a Dexterity (Stealth) check only when the DM decides the conditions are appropriate. She could decide they are never appropriate in combat, until they actually are for some specific reason, while another DM might decide they always are except when they aren't, and both would be playing the game right.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ranger get hide in plain sight rogues don't.

A bit of an oversight perhaps if RAI originally.

Hide in Plain Sight has nothing to do with remaining hidden after making a ranged attack. It allows the ranger to hide by spending 1 minute making camouflage and pressing themselves against a tree (thereby making themselves not clearly seen) and gives them a +10 bonus to their Dexterity (Stealth) check when they do so. If making a ranged attack makes you no longer hidden, it would do so for a ranger hiding in this way as well.

I think most of us can probably agree the stealth rules suck.

I don’t, I think they’re great. They do exactly what they need to and leave the rest up to the DM.

 

[Nefermandias]

Bad reading the rules say if you're seen you can't hide. Once you attack you're spotted.

Don't blame the DMs blame the writers.

You are either missing the point or you are one of the bad DMs.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are either missing the point or you are one of the bad DMs.

Of course I am. Anyone who disagrees is a bad DM.

It's right there in the PHB though.

 

[Nefermandias]

Of course I am. Anyone who disagrees is a bad DM.

It's right there in the PHB though.

You keep bringing up that people who can be clearly seen cannot hide, but that was never the question. You are missing the point.

 

[Zardnaar]

You keep bringing up that people who can be clearly seen cannot hide, but that was never the question. You are missing the point.

See what the PHB say. It's ambiguous yes?

I might let a rogue hide in a prepped ambush spot and snipe eg a forest.

20 by 20 room probably not at least not past the first shot.

The designers have obviously changed their mind since 2014 or realized they didn't phrase it right.

If not they would have just said "whenever a rogue attacks they can sneak attack".

They didn't.


Main reason I go with RAW in PHB is because I've had player on different pages some quoting online sources, others errata, some the developers and others the PHB or incorrectly quoting them as the case may be.

All it does is F people off and cause arguements IRL.

 

[Oofta]

The way I run it is that there has to be some kind of cover that gives the rogue an opportunity to hide and it needs to be reasonable that the target doesn't know exactly where the rogue is going to attack from. So if a the rogue just goes around the corner and has to reappear from the exact same corner to get line of sight, it's not going to work. On the other hand, disappear around a corner, climb up and fire from the roof has a chance to work.

The idea is kind of a "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." In general attack from a spot will work once but the enemy doesn't forget you exist and they'll be watching if they know where you'll be attacking from. At a certain point the rogue isn't hiding for purposes of gaining advantage as much as getting the benefit of being totally concealed.

So it's not going to be available every round, every combat, but should be available on a fairly regular basis. It's not like rogues need advantage, they tend to do plenty of damage in games I've played anyway.

EDIT: this is also why I rarely do "dungeon crawls" with small empty rooms only occupied by monsters and a pile o' treasure. I want to give people options to creatively use the environment.

 

[Yora]

The only interpretation that ever seemed reasonable to me is that you can hide in combat if you're in an area without enemies in it. You could use your main action to shot an arrow at an enemy, then move to get around a corner or into another room, and then use your bonus action to hide in a barrel, under a bed, or behind a curtain as your bonus action.
You can't hide behind a curtain if there's an enemy in the room that is in combat, whether as your main action or a bonus action.

 

[Zardnaar]

Takes quite a bit of effort to figure out things like lighting etc.

In the right circumstances I would let a rogue run rings around someone using hide as a bonus action.

Eg thick foliage, Underdark, jungle, thick mist etc. I've had entire parties trained in stealth ninja their way through stuff. Early combat is the inititve roll, mid encounter is the surprise round late combat round one.

I allow aim from Tasha's in any event.

 

[Nefermandias]

People standing in a heavily obscured area or with total cover in relation to the opponent CAN HIDE. It's that simple, really. This shouldn't be up for debate.
You can't see things behind a wall or in total darkness.