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

[Nefermandias]

In my games, a rogue can certainly duck behind a door with part of their move, hide as a bonus action, shoot from around the door, and then move back out of view. They can do that every round. That is 100% 'rogue schtick' activity, expected and iconic to the rogue. To me, as a DM, you look for opportunities for the rogue to do the things that make them cool.

Most of the stealth and hiding rules are in the hands of the DM - but if your DM is not allowing you to hide effectively and often as a rogue, that is a huge warning sign for me as a player that I'm in the wrong game.

They can't try to hide a second time in the same turn though, since Hide is a Bonus Action and you only get one each turn, but yea, they could definitely duck behind cover at least.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I allow the rogue in my game to justify hiding in a lot of ways. Sometimes they are ducking around a corner, sometimes they are leaping into a crate, sometimes they are causing a distraction to draw attention away from themselves. Kind of like how the Wizard I play has a higher intelligence than I do, I assume the Rogue Character knows how to hide a lot better than the players do.

As for a Rogue hiding behind a column, firing a bow, and then hiding again... I allow it! I see it kind of like gun fighters in a Western Film ducking down behind the horse trough, shooting, then ducking down again. Even though the enemy knows where they are, the enemy is also getting distracted by the barbarian hacking away at them, and isn't using all their awareness to keep track of when the rogue will be popping out again.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.)

My reply to that rather narrow interpretation would be...

• Why is Hide described on PHB page 192 under "Actions in Combat"?
• If the design intent is that creatures cannot Hide during combat, why does the rogue's Cunning Action allow using a bonus action to Hide? If time is not a pressure, why make it a bonus action?
• If the design intent is that creatures cannot Hide during combat, why does the DMG page 281 describe the goblin's Nimble Escape as having the following effect on CR calculations: "Increase the monster's effective AC and effective attack bonus by 4 (assuming the monster hides every round)"? Doesn't that sound like the designers assume the goblin is Hiding during combat?
• According to that argument – "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you" – once line of sight was broken via blinding that creature, turning invisible, diving around a blind corner, or entering a cloud of fog, then you would be able to Hide, correct?

I don't know whether your DM was intending to say "there's nowhere to Hide in this particular room," or if they really meant they believe Hiding in combat is 100% never possible. That latter position, I would argue, is not supported in the rules.

 

[ECMO3]

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?

The DM makes the rules and there is a wide variance as to how it is applied.

That said, it would not be a bonus action for a Rogue if it was only to be used out of combat, moreover search would not be listed as an action because no one could be hidden in combat. To hide RAW the character needs to be completely obscured (halfling, skulker or Wood Elf features notwithstanding). So what was in the room is of great importance.

If there was nothing to hide behind and no way to get obscuration than RAW the DM is correct, you can't hide in that room, in combat or out of combat. If there is something to hide behind then you can hide. The player has to be specific here, I duck behind the counterl and hide. He can't just say "I hide". If I were the player I would ask the DM to describe what is in the room specifically.

Those statements do not consider the size of what you are hiding behind. Where it becomes difficult is you are on an open plane with one tree. You hide behind the tree. Well ok you are "hidden" but everyone knows where you are in this case. If you are in a room with a 20 foot long changing urtain that is a completely different situation, you duck behind the curtain and could be anywhere behind it if you pass your stealth check (if you fail they know exactly where you are). Third example - you turn invisible, everyone knows where you are until you take the hide action. Once you take it, if you succeed you can be anywhere in the room.

Halflings can hide in almost any battle considering their special ability to hide behind a medium creature, also if you are using a grid, this allows them to use this on many squares. Three medium creatures standing in a line on ajacent squares is as good as a 15 foot wall for them and based on angles could give them a 25 foot wide area to hide in the first rank behind the creatures and expanding beyond that. Using the rules in the PHB draw lines from the square the enemy is in and treat the squares creatures are in as a solid wall.

 

[cmad1977]

I mean…. The rogue CAN hide and can’t be targeted… people will kinda “know” where he is but won’t be able to target them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What else is it good for then?
If it is no combat, it makes no difference at all if it is an action or bonus action.

Although of course, you should at least have enough cover to duck behind and to get advantage there should be at least some uncertanity where exactly you will appear to make your shot.

I would use advantage or disadvantage to staelth checks/ passive perception as appropriate:
loud noises, dim light, rogue might get advantage
Bright room, only one possible small hiding spot, rogue might get disadvantage and +5 passive perception.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

That could have been phrased better. Like, without that closing phrase. Something like “Perhaps you are missing the point.” would have forwarded the conversation without including a personal indictment.

Do better next time, OK?

 

[Ancalagon]

To me, I think hiding in combat is indeed quite possible if there are hiding spots... BUT the spot can't just be "a barrel".

If there is a fight, and the halfling rogue archer ducks behind a 5 foot crate in a fairly plain room... the foes know you are behind the crate. You are hidden (you can't be seen and you are being quiet), but you won't gain a sneak attack because you are attacking from "hiding" - they know where you are!

HOWEVER. Say instead of a single crate it's a pile of crates with a wagon parked right besides it. You could hide, reposition and then attack with the sneak attack bonus - you could be attacking from behind a number of crate, from the wagon, from under the wagon. The enemy doesn't know where that arrow is going to come from.

That's how I run it. You may feel differently.

 

[Charlaquin]

To me, I think hiding in combat is indeed quite possible if there are hiding spots... BUT the spot can't just be "a barrel".

If there is a fight, and the halfling rogue archer ducks behind a 5 foot crate in a fairly plain room... the foes know you are behind the crate. You are hidden (you can't be seen and you are being quiet), but you won't gain a sneak attack because you are attacking from "hiding" - they know where you are!

HOWEVER. Say instead of a single crate it's a pile of crates with a wagon parked right besides it. You could hide, reposition and then attack with the sneak attack bonus - you could be attacking from behind a number of crate, from the wagon, from under the wagon. The enemy doesn't know where that arrow is going to come from.

That's how I run it. You may feel differently.

Nothing in the rules suggests that you shouldn’t get the benefits of being hidden if your opponent knows your location, and the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy feature would be useless if that was the case. The DM decides when it’s possible to hide, but the effects of being hidden are quite clear and explicit, so if you allow them to become hidden, they should gain those benefits.

Specifically, being hidden gives you three benefits: you have advantage on attacks against creatures you’re hidden from, creatures you’re hidden from don’t know your location, and attackers who correctly guess your location have disadvantage on attacks against you. If you’re hidden but in an obvious spot like behind a barrel, or a pillar, or a tree, or your Medium sized ally, this should negate the second benefit, but not the first or the third. As a point of comparison, consider a creature that is invisible but not hidden. They will have advantage on attack rolls even though targets will know where the attack is coming from, and attacks against them have disadvantage even though attackers know their position. This is because while observers can discern the invisible creature’s location well enough to attack in the right spot, they still have a harder time hitting what they can’t see, and don’t know exactly when an attack is coming or from what angle. So why would that not also be the case with targets that are unseen and unheard but hidden in an obvious spot?

 

[Oofta]

Nothing in the rules suggests that you shouldn’t get the benefits of being hidden if your opponent knows your location, and the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy feature would be useless if that was the case. The DM decides when it’s possible to hide, but the effects of being hidden are quite clear and explicit, so if you allow them to become hidden, they should gain those benefits.

Specifically, being hidden gives you three benefits: you have advantage on attacks against creatures you’re hidden from, creatures you’re hidden from don’t know your location, and attackers who correctly guess your location have disadvantage on attacks against you. If you’re hidden but in an obvious spot like behind a barrel, or a pillar, or a tree, or your Medium sized ally, this should negate the second benefit, but not the first or the third. As a point of comparison, consider a creature that is invisible but not hidden. They will have advantage on attack rolls even though targets will know where the attack is coming from, and attacks against them have disadvantage even though attackers know their position. This is because while observers can discern the invisible creature’s location well enough to attack in the right spot, they still have a harder time hitting what they can’t see, and don’t know exactly when an attack is coming or from what angle. So why would that not also be the case with targets that are unseen and unheard but hidden in an obvious spot?

But in order to get a clear shot, in most cases you have to leave cover. The halfling rogue can't shoot directly through the body of another person. The moment you are clearly seen, you are not hidden. So there has to be a reason for the attacker to not be clearly seen, which in my games can include just not paying attention to the specific location the rogue pops out from.