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

[Oofta]

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.

Creatures are explicitly called out as providing cover

"Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. "

Whether DMs enforce the rule is up to them.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Sorry not firing into melee but firing through your own team or another creature. The cover rules.

If DMs not using the aim rule smart rogue melees switching to range if need be.

The rogue has hit points use them. You can reduce the damage and you have hit dice as well.

You're basically screwing your own party over by hanging back unless you have plenty of meat shields maybe.

By all means use ranged if you have to or are low on hit points.

 

[Rabulias]

"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.

(Bold emphasis mine) It does sound like jayoungr's DM has made up their mind on this, but if it ever comes up again, I would point out that taking the Hide action in combat is meant for anyone to do (including enemies and monsters!), not just rogues. It's just that rogues can do it easier and get a greater benefit from it - it's part of their schtick.

I also agree with others here that the Dexterity (Stealth) roll made when a character takes the Hide action in combat can be seen as them choosing a time when the opponent is distracted to duck into cover. I also think that attacking from cover involves popping out at various locations and timing, so even if they know you are behind the corner, you might shoot from low, or shoot from high, or shoot from anyplace in between, and change it up each round, so they can't defend against it as easily. The Dexterity (Stealth) roll can also be viewed as approximating how well you vary the attack origin points to keep an opponent off guard.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry not firing into melee but firing through your own team or another creature. The cover rules.

That's capped at -2. There's no provision for 3/4 cover being available here. You can do it, but that's you making a house rule for this situation. Totes fine, just be clear if you're doing this.

If DMs not using the aim rule smart rogue melees switching to range if need be.

Ranged is a better option. You can hide more effectively, your shots are more tactically effective due to freedom of targeting, and you retain mobility without needing to use disengage.

The rogue has hit points use them. You can reduce the damage and you have hit dice as well.

Or you can kill the thing low on hitpoints that you aren't next to, thereby saving party hitpoints even more efficiently.

You're basically screwing your own party over by hanging back unless you have plenty of meat shields maybe.

The idea that not getting hit screws over the party is strange. I mean, I see the shape of this -- x damage handed out evenly to y targets may mean that someone doesn't go down, which may happen if x damage is handed out to y-1 opponents, but this is highly white room analysis that requires a weird form of ceteris paribus to work. I say weird because it means that there's zero adjustment to a different party arrangement allowed -- it's just "team monster hits 6 times and deals x damage per hit. Team heroes has 3x damage. Therefore, team hero MUST make sure to distribute team monster damage to at least 3 characters to prevent 1 character going down and make most efficient use of hit dice (the only resource of relevance in this scheme). I don't buy it.

By all means use ranged if you have to or are low on hit points.

The advantages of ranged:

1) mobility -- you are usually not threatened and so can usually make full use of movement for better tactical positioning. If you do become threatened, then you're tied with melee. Melee never excels here.
2) targeting -- with ranged, you can always make optimal targeting decisions for your attacks as you are not limited to those targets in reach or that can be brought into reach via movement. As such, you can target new additions to the field that benefit, you can target concentrating spell casters, you can target injured monsters to reduce team monster damage output more efficiently. Melee can only target in reach, and 1) reduces the ability for melee to be efficient in targeting.
3) survivability -- rogues make poor frontline combatants. You mention only 1 point of AC, but this ignores things like shields and how a rogue selecting for magic armor means they are not selecting other items that are highly useful to rogues. Once a fighter hits full plate and shield, the AC difference for rogues is going to be 2 points, not 1. Add magic, just +1 armor and shield, and the rogue falls further behind. Also, requiring rogues to be melee primarily means they have to add CON as a secondary pick, bumping INT and CHA to tertiary or worse. This removes effectiveness in the rogue's primary shtick and area of expertise (heh, pun) just to increase staying power in melee. Without CON priorities, rogues lack the hitpoints to remain on the line and effectively absorb hits. Dodge is only partially useful against multiattackers, and removes the one thing a melee rogue really has an advantage on -- the opportunity for OA sneak attacks.

I find your analysis very centered on "everyone must take damage," which is not a strong argument. Or are you similarly saying that wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks should be focusing on touch range spells so that they can effectively soak damage in the line as well?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I covered that, in the bit you quoted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a house rule, which a penalty for firing into melee would be. The cover rules cap at -2 -- as in this is the only case discussed. -5 for cover from other creatures would, again, be a house rule. And, again, just fine, but such should be called out if intentional (misunderstandings of the rules happen), because it's holding up an argument with a condition that only exists at your table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

(Bold emphasis mine) It does sound like jayoungr's DM has made up their mind on this, but if it ever comes up again, I would point out that taking the Hide action in combat is meant for anyone to do (including enemies and monsters!), not just rogues. It's just that rogues can do it easier and get a greater benefit from it - it's part of their schtick.

I also agree with others here that the Dexterity (Stealth) roll made when a character takes the Hide action in combat can be seen as them choosing a time when the opponent is distracted to duck into cover. I also think that attacking from cover involves popping out at various locations and timing, so even if they know you are behind the corner, you might shoot from low, or shoot from high, or shoot from anyplace in between, and change it up each round, so they can't defend against it as easily. The Dexterity (Stealth) roll can also be viewed as approximating how well you vary the attack origin points to keep an opponent off guard.

Yep. There's two approaches that you can use here. You can imagine the fiction first, in detail, including the actions taken by the PC, and decide if that makes sense. The issue here is that you're picking what that action looks like and fixing the entire situation beforehand, which is highly susceptible to bias or a mismatch between the player and the GM. Eg, the Oni is staring at the halfing, and the halfing attempts to stand behind the ranger but it's pretty clear that they Oni can see them peeking around the cape.

Alternatively, you could acknowledge that the rules intend this, allow the check, and then modify how you imagine the fiction to accommodate the result. Turns out that fiction can be modified in lots of ways to explain things. Eg, the Oni looks at the fighter to parry a blow, and when they scan the room again that halfling has disappeared!

Almost every argument I see for verisimilitude invokes the former approach. Neither is wrong, but, man, I tell you my game got better and didn't become farcical or lose verisimilitude when I switched to the latter approach.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Does anyone else feel like the DM in question expects players to learn, through experience, how to play rogues "properly" - from a narrative perspective - instead of through learning the game mechanics? Or is it just me?

 

[billd91]

I mean, they’re not wrong. It’s their game, their rules, regardless of what the book says or how anyone here interprets it.

I would like to add the caveat, only so far as the players tolerate their DM's interpretation of the rules. It doesn't seem like that's much of an issue if she's been a DM for as long as she has - she's definitely had a pool of players to draw from willing to engage. But DMs who routinely have mismatches between their take on the rule and their players may run short of players, in which case it being their game, their rules is a hollow solace for the lonely DM.

Ultimately, I'm not at all impressed by her arguments - at least as reported here.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think you mean Inigo

/facepalm (in the "I'm so embarrassed" sense)

Yes. I stand corrected.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Yes. It seems to me that it isn't meant to replace the Hide/Shoot cheese because it's strictly inferior. It's meant to give them an option for gaining advantage when there's nothing to hide behind.