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

[Bill Zebub]

Personally I think the “physics” based argument is silly

Geometry and psychology, maybe.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

As Fezzik would say....

I think you mean Inigo

 

[Nefermandias]

I'll add that I think the hide/shoot/hide/shoot thing is cheesy. But since stealth is so central to rogue identity, my solution of choice wouldn't be to nerf stealth, but to nerf archery.

It seems to be working as intended. Also, they added the Aim action in Tasha's to put an end to this argument, but it clearly didn't work so well as they thought it would.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

The halfling Rogue can shoot directly directly through the space of another creature as anyone can. Whoever he is shooting at will have cover (-2 or -5), but he absolutely can do it.

A halfling hiding behind a creature is not completely obscured from view, he has a line of sight to the person he is attacking and can see the enemy. The enemy could see him too if he was not a halfling who had succesfully taken the hide action and it is specifically the halfling ability that makes this possible.

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.

The "reason" the halfling is not seen is that there is a specific rule which overides the general rule that he must be fully obscured to be unseen. It also has to be a creature specifically, it cant be for example be a manequin even though that would have the exact same shape as a human.

In most circumstances your position has merit, but not in this particular one. Same is true for a wood elf in falling snow or rain (although in this case the enemy has no cover).

Either of these cases are fundamentally different than the archer hides behind a small wall and peeks out to shoot. In that case I am with you.

 

[ECMO3]

It seems to be working as intended. Also, they added the Aim action in Tasha's to put an end to this argument, but it clearly didn't work so well as they thought it would.

Steady aim is extremely restrictive due to the movement penalty. It is powerful, but hardly usable every turn, especially considering cover.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

This is a non-argument, because the rogue hiding can also result in a seamless story that's immersive. The "I can't be wrong" is a red flag to me. This shows that there was zero intent to consider the question at all. It's also hostile. You should examine the relationship -- given 4 below, there appears to be some latent hostility here.

"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.

Cool, if the GM thinks the Oni has a better visual situation, they can give advantage. The high int/wis will help with perception, making it harder to hide. The object permanence argument is silly -- modern military tactics often involve flanking while holding an enemies attention, thereby catching the enemy in a surprise crossfire. The enemy doesn't forget that there were 20 soldiers, but they don't know where those 7 went. Hiding doesn't mean you make people forget you exist. What a silly argument!

"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.

This is clearly ignoring the multiple examples in the rules that clearly intend hiding to be something that happens in combat. Again, there appears to be no intent to consider, here.

"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."

This is, again, actively hostile, and is trying to say that the ruling on hiding in combat somehow affects people enjoying the game. My first question to this, in your shoes, would be to immediately ask, "so, I allow hiding in combat. Are you saying that I am wrong to do so and that it actively harms new players' joy? Because, this is a very insulting thing to say -- you're assuming someone else might have less fun if you aren't right and I ask a question about it."

Really, though, these are warning signs that I might be using to consider leaving the game -- not because of the rogue hiding thing, that's honestly an "Ok, I hear you, don't play rogues." It's the hostility and use of emotional blackmail to dismiss, without any consideration, your question. That's uncalled for. I've had friends that I will happily run for, but would never, ever, be in their games.

The only thing I really liked about their response was not caring what people on the internet say. That's good. But, using that to dismiss what your player is saying? Rude.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Opportunity cost. Dial wielding in melee.

1. Don't have -2 or -5 to hit if firing into melee.

There is no such penalty in 5e. Perhaps you have a house rule, in which case that's cool, but you should be clear about it. At most, you might have a cover penalty if you're shooting through a space with a large enough creature in it.

2. Two chances to sneak attack.

If you're hidden, you also have 2 chances to sneak attack. Rogues already have quite a lot of demands for bonus actions, and can very easily find they do not have a bonus action available for an off-hand attack. This is, at best, situationally better for 2 handers, but only if you don't consider the rest.

3. Splits up incoming damage.

Perhaps good for the party, but not for the rogue.

4. Can halve incoming damage.

Range attacking usually means NO incoming damage, and you can still halve it. Actual optimum use of rogues, though, will be aiming to get a out-of-turn attack using that reaction to sneak attack again, which you can't do if you're inviting damage to use the dodge.

5. Sometimes range matters with hand crossbows and sortbows so they can't sneak attack due to range.

If range matters for a missile weapon, it most certainly precludes any melee attack, so...

 

[Oofta]

The halfling Rogue can shoot directly directly through the space of another creature as anyone can. Whoever he is shooting at will have cover (-2 or -5), but he absolutely can do it.

A halfling hiding behind a creature is not completely obscured from view, he has a line of sight to the person he is attacking and can see the enemy. The enemy could see him too if he was not a halfling who had succesfully taken the hide action and it is specifically the halfling ability that makes this possible.



The "reason" the halfling is not seen is that there is a specific rule which overides the general rule that he must be fully obscured to be unseen. It also has to be a creature specifically, it cant be for example be a manequin even though that would have the exact same shape as a human.

In most circumstances your position has merit, but not in this particular one. Same is true for a wood elf in falling snow or rain (although in this case the enemy has no cover).

Either of these cases are fundamentally different than the archer hides behind a small wall and peeks out to shoot. In that case I am with you.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on halflings. Wood elves are a different issue.

But this is an area that is completely up to the DM. As I've said, in games I've played rogues seem to do just fine in the damage department. I know spreadsheets say different but they make a lot of assumptions which don't seem to matter in games I've been part of.

 

[Redwizard007]

There is no such penalty in 5e. Perhaps you have a house rule, in which case that's cool, but you should be clear about it. At most, you might have a cover penalty if you're shooting through a space with a large enough creature in it.

I'm assuming here, but they are probably ruling that melee combatants may/might/always grant some degree of cover. It's technically RAW (at least from some angles,) but not a connection any DM I've ever played with has made. Still, calling it a house rule seems a little dismissive.

 

[cbwjm]

I do tend to always forget about half cover when firing into melee (at least when another creature is in the way of the target). I'm pretty sure that this is what the archery fighting style was designed to mitigate.