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

[Bill Zebub]

Opportunity cost. Dial wielding in melee.

1. Don't have -2 or -5 to hit if firing into melee.
2. Two chances to sneak attack.
3. Splits up incoming damage.
4. Can halve incoming damage.
5. Sometimes range matters with hand crossbows and sortbows so they can't sneak attack due to range.

#1 A lot of DMs don't apply negative modifiers to shooting into melee.
#3 & #4 In a lot of situations there is no incoming damage if you're at range
#5 I more often see the case that you can't get into range at all with melee weapons, so it's hard to have sympathy for the archer over range issues

#2 Yes, this is the one advantage of having two weapons, and is the whole point of the hide/shoot cheese.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

You can arc a shot over them. Or like, between their legs or something. Obviously your target should have at least half cover from you though

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.

Oh, sure! Like I said, the rules are clear that the DM determines when it’s possible to hide, which includes whether or not you can remain hidden. If you rule that you stop being hidden if you make an attack, that’s consistent with the RAW, even if it isn’t how I would rule. It would also be consistent with RAW to rule that you can’t become hidden in the first place if your opponent knows your location. I was just saying if you do allow them to hide (and to remain hidden), nothing in the rules suggests they shouldn’t gain the benefits of being hidden.

Though I maintain that the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy and the Skulker feat make it clear that RAI is for you to be able to get advantage when hidden in such a way, to say nothing of the rogue’s expected damage output.

 

[Charlaquin]

This isn't my position. The way I've always played rogues in other games would be something like this:

Round 1, starting in the open: Attack, move to cover, cunning action to roll stealth check to hide.
Round 2, starting hidden assuming the stealth check succeeded: Attack, move again if necessary, cunning action to roll new stealth check to hide.

Rinse and repeat. If I use the cunning action to dash, I don't get to hide.

I realize that my position is known as soon as I attack in each round, which is why I try to be hidden again by the end of each turn if possible.

This is not optimal because it gives opponents the opportunity to search for you on their turn, or even just move to a position from which they can see you clearly. Better to hide first and then attack on the same turn.

 

[jayoungr]

This is not optimal because it gives opponents the opportunity to search for you on their turn, or even just move to a position from which they can see you clearly. Better to hide first and then attack on the same turn.

Generally, I'm counting on the melee fighters in the party to keep the opponents distracted and/or locked down so they can't come looking for me. And if I fail the first stealth check, then I can try again before attacking on the next round. It means that if I succeed on the stealth checks, my vulnerable window only lasts for my turn instead of the whole round between my turns.

 

[mrpopstar]

You can be behind full cover and have your location still be known. Like being invisible. The stealth check is to lose yourself from the target's POV. Like, think of it as choosing the moment when your attacker's attention is elsewhere to run behind the cover, so that they lose track of where you are.

Page 192 also says that using the Hide action in combat grants you "certain benefits, as described in the 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' section" (pages 194-195).

The argument against this seems to be that just because you've ducked behind full cover (i.e. behind a barrel), a creature still knows where you are (i.e. behind the barrel), but it isn't so much that you've escaped the creature's awareness (i.e. knowledge that you're behind the barrel), you've escaped their alertness (i.e. readiness to react to your next move).

 

[Charlaquin]

Generally, I'm counting on the melee fighters in the party to keep the opponents distracted and/or locked down so they can't come looking for me. And if I fail the first stealth check, then I can try again before attacking on the next round.

Fair enough.

 

[jayoungr]

The argument against this seems to be that just because you've ducked behind full cover (i.e. behind a barrel), a creature still knows where you are (i.e. behind the barrel), but it isn't so much that you've escaped the creature's awareness (i.e. knowledge that you're behind the barrel), you've escaped their alertness (i.e. readiness to react to your next move).

My position is that if you duck behind a barrel and make a successful stealth check, the creature doesn't know you're behind the barrel. You could make the stealth check first, if that would make it easier to conceptualize.

I maintain that the lightfoot halfling’s naturally stealthy and the Skulker feat make it clear that RAI is for you to be able to get advantage when hidden in such a way, to say nothing of the rogue’s expected damage output.

I edited this into a post above, but I'll mention it again here: page 192 of the PHB says that if you succeed on the Hide action during combat, you gain the benefits of being an unseen attacker or target as described on pages 194-195. That seems to turn it from RAI to RAW, to me, but this thread (and last night's discussion) has made it clear that there's a lot of variation in what people see as RAW.

 

[Rune]

This is not optimal because it gives opponents the opportunity to search for you on their turn, or even just move to a position from which they can see you clearly. Better to hide first and then attack on the same turn.

Considering that searching for a hidden opponent would require an action it seems like a very desirable outcome to me. The movement not so much, unless opportunity atracks or booming blade (or similar) would trigger.

 

[Shiroiken]

The determination of the outcome of a player's action is completely dependent on the DM. If the DM decides that something is impossible or impossible to fail, they can determine it that way. It's only when the DM decides the outcome is in question that dice are involved.

Hiding in combat is obviously a thing, but Hiding was written to allow a lot of DM leeway (which turned out to be a poor decision according to many). In your example, the rogue could have tried to tip over the table to hide behind it, or hide behind another PC if they're a lightfoot halfling. Here's where DM interpretation can then come into effect.

If the player is attempting to Hide then Attack, the DM can rule that you gain no benefit attacking from the same space you started hiding in, as they know where you are (I grant advantage to the target's Passive Perception instead). If the player is attempting to hide in order to attack in the next round, the DM can have the creature move to have line of sight on the enemy, since they know they're hiding in a confined space (behind the table or PC) which automatically ends hiding. A real jerk DM can say that by RAW, once you move to make a ranged attack you immediately become seen and thus gain no benefit from it (this was a major argument on the WotC forums when 5E first came out, and it was incredibly stupid).

 

[Charlaquin]

Considering that searching for a hidden opponent would require an action it seems like a very desirable outcome to me. The movement not so much, unless opportunity atracks or booming blade (or similar) would trigger.

Sure. And as @jayoungr pointed out, your allies might be able to keep your opponents busy enough that they don’t have the opportunity to look for you. Seems like a higher risk but higher reward strategy than hiding first and then attacking on the same turn.