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

[mrpopstar]

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.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around.

If you're in combat with a creature and you're in a fairly plain room with just one barrel (as in the scenario proposed by @Ancalagon), you can duck behind the barrel, but the creature is clearly aware that you're behind the barrel.

If you successfully "hide," you can get the jump on them with your next attack; not because you've escaped their knowledge of you being behind the barrel, but because you've escaped their readiness to anticipate your next move.

That's a fair-minded interpretation of the rules. A more conservative (though no less reasonable) interpretation would be that circumstances are inappropriate for hiding because the creature knows exactly where you are.

 

[jayoungr]

Update: I brought some of these matters before the DM, and here was her response:

"Well, here's my interpretation/reply to this:

"1. I don't care what strangers on forums think about particular rules. I know my game, my group, and the way I want to tell a story. The particulars of game mechanics are less important than telling a seamless story that's immersive, imo.

"2. The idea that a rogue in the in the middle of a combat can suddenly John Cena away from view is ridiculous in a physics sense. The Oni you were fighting is larger and can see over heads. He's also got a high int/wis score. He also has object permanence: he's not a kitten or an infant. He's not going to suddenly forget there were 5 of you.

"3. The rogue hide rule might work if the rogue starts hiding before combat begins, but as soon as she pops out to shoot, she's spotted. She can attempt to re-hide, but chances are the opponent now has advantage and maybe a bonus to spot her, since an intelligent creature would know where it's being pinged from. I'm not going to break my realism with bad physics because some interpretations of the rules say I should.

"4. Ultimately, it's [Rogue]'s character and her choice as to what she wants to do with it. We've helped her get aimed shot now, so if she wants to use it, cool. If she wants to attempt to hide going into a combat, cool. Ultimately, it's her choice. Players like [Rogue] and [Other Player] are new to the game; I don't want to kill their joy by taking away their choices. They haven't seen the situations and monsters the rest of us have been fighting for years, so I really don't want anything spoiling the newness for them!

"Anyhow, that's the way I see all this."

 

[Oofta]

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

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.

There's no one true way, but rogues seem to do plenty of damage in every game I've played. It's not like they need advantage, it's just nice to have.

 

[Oofta]

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around.

If you're in combat with a creature and you're in a fairly plain room with just one barrel (as in the scenario proposed by @Ancalagon), you can duck behind the barrel, but the creature is clearly aware that you're behind the barrel.

If you successfully "hide," you can get the jump on them with your next attack; not because you've escaped their knowledge of you being behind the barrel, but because you've escaped their readiness to anticipate your next move.

That's a fair-minded interpretation of the rules. A more conservative (though no less reasonable) interpretation would be that circumstances are inappropriate for hiding because the creature knows exactly where you are.

It's not that you aren't hidden while behind the barrel, you are. It's that in order to target anyone you normally have to have line of effect which in most cases means line of sight that goes both ways. If the target is sufficiently distracted or not paying enough attention, it's up to the DM whether they remain hidden.

As the rules state

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.​

While this is melee and "approaching", it's still clear to me that it's up to the DM whether or not they notice you if they have a clear line of sight.

 

[Charlaquin]

Update: I brought some of these matters before the DM, and here was her response:

"Well, here's my interpretation/reply to this:

"1. I don't care what strangers on forums think about particular rules. I know my game, my group, and the way I want to tell a story. The particulars of game mechanics are less important than telling a seamless story that's immersive, imo.

"2. The idea that a rogue in the in the middle of a combat can suddenly John Cena away from view is ridiculous in a physics sense. The Oni you were fighting is larger and can see over heads. He's also got a high int/wis score. He also has object permanence: he's not a kitten or an infant. He's not going to suddenly forget there were 5 of you.

"3. The rogue hide rule might work if the rogue starts hiding before combat begins, but as soon as she pops out to shoot, she's spotted. She can attempt to re-hide, but chances are the opponent now has advantage and maybe a bonus to spot her, since an intelligent creature would know where it's being pinged from. I'm not going to break my realism with bad physics because some interpretations of the rules say I should.

"4. Ultimately, it's [Rogue]'s character and her choice as to what she wants to do with it. We've helped her get aimed shot now, so if she wants to use it, cool. If she wants to attempt to hide going into a combat, cool. Ultimately, it's her choice. Players like [Rogue] and [Other Player] are new to the game; I don't want to kill their joy by taking away their choices. They haven't seen the situations and monsters the rest of us have been fighting for years, so I really don't want anything spoiling the newness for them!

"Anyhow, that's the way I see all this."

I mean, they’re not wrong. It’s their game, their rules, regardless of what the book says or how anyone here interprets it. Personally I think the “physics” based argument is silly and based on a misunderstanding of what being “hidden” actually means in terms of the D&D rules (of course the monster won’t forget the rogue exists, that has nothing to do with it), and I would not play a rogue in a game they were DMing. But ultimately that doesn’t matter because it’s their call, and soliciting opinions from the forums to win an argument with your DM is both ineffective and generally considered bad form.

I don’t know what that “I don’t want to kill their joy by taking away their choices” thing is about though. Seems like there’s some additional context about this disagreement that you left out. Whatever’s going on with you and your DM, you should really address it with them directly.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's no one true way, but rogues seem to do plenty of damage in every game I've played. It's not like they need advantage, it's just nice to have.

They may seem to do plenty of damage, to you, but if you crunch the numbers they really do need two opportunities per round to try and land a sneak attack (be that from advantage or a bonus action attack against a target within 5 feet of an ally) to keep up with the at-will damage of other classes. Whether or not it matters to you that they be able to “keep up” in that way is of course a matter of personal taste, and if the way you rule it works for you, more power to you.

 

[jayoungr]

But ultimately that doesn’t matter because it’s their call,

I acknowledged that at the beginning and end of making my case to her.

and soliciting opinions from the forums to win an argument with your DM is both ineffective and generally considered bad form.

I've done it before when I've DM'd for them and we've had rules disagreements, and I've usually ended up going their way after discussing it on the forum (in this thread, for example). So I'd consider it a bit churlish of her to be offended at that, when she's usually benefited from it.

I don’t know what that “I don’t want to kill their joy by taking away their choices” thing is about though. Seems like there’s some additional context about this disagreement that you left out. Whatever’s going on with you and your DM, you should really address it with them directly.

I am just as mystified by that comment as you are.* I'm stunned and frankly rather hurt that she's accusing me of it. I responded by saying this was the last I'd say on the subject and that I apologized to [Rogue] if she felt I was "killing her joy." The DM responded, "Again, I have no idea--that, too, is up to [Rogue]...."

*ETA: Unless she thinks I shouldn't have made suggestions to the Rogue about how to play her class?

 

[Charlaquin]

I acknowledged that at the beginning and end of making my case to her.


I've done it before when I've DM'd for them and we've had rules disagreements, and I've usually ended up going their way after discussing it on the forum, (in this thread, for example). So I'd consider it a bit churlish of her to be offended at that, frankly.


I am just as mystified by that comment as you are. I'm stunned and frankly rather hurt that she's accusing me of it.

Seems like your play preferences might not be a good match for each other if this sort of disagreement is common between you.

 

[jayoungr]

Seems like your play preferences might not be a good match for each other if this sort of disagreement is common between you.

We've been playing together since 2013 and have been friends for much longer than that. It's just that this is the first time I've been the player disagreeing with one of them as DM. In past, I've been the DM 90% of the time, and they've been very free about disagreeing about rules with me.

And it's not that she is an inexperienced DM. She has DM'd since the AD&D days (much longer than I have, in fact), and she also ran both "Sunless Citadel" and "Tomb of Horrors" last winter when I wasn't able to join in. Her husband is usually the "rules lawyer" at the table who pounces on every call I make as DM that's open to debate.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The particulars of game mechanics are less important than telling a seamless story that's immersive, imo.

Yet another instance of the word "immersive" being used to mean "the way I like things".

As Fezzik would say....