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

[Umbran]

Is this thread about that one GM, or about rogues and hiding?

The Golden Rule applies, as always. Imagine folks hearing a briefly written report about one of your own not-great calls, and talking about you like this? How would you feel?

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

Using just the PHB the DM is correct.

Using out of PHB knowledge apparently rogues ate supposed to be able to do it.

In this particular case though tbe DM us right and not being unreasonable. RAW in the PHB if they can see you you can't hide. Theoretically you can if you break line of sight eg sneak attack, move behind total cover, bonus action hide.

Having partial cover you can't do it.

RAI you can apparently.

Edit. Misread OP the DM is wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Using just the PHB the DM is correct.

Sorry, where are you pulling this from? Page numbers are helpful. The PHB I have says the GM determines if the situation allows hiding, but there's a HUGE preponderance of evidence that it can be done, and especially direct evidence that a lightfoot halfling can hide freely behind a larger creature. Ruling that you cannot hide in combat is possible, sure, but at this point you're not actually relying on the PHB, but instead taking one statement out of context and deciding that's the only important thing there.

I mean, I'm a huge proponent of "GM decides" being the core mechanic of 5e, but it's quite a thing to say that you can't hide in combat given the preponderance of evidence otherwise in just the PHB.

Using out of PHB knowledge apparently rogues ate supposed to be able to do it.

In this particular case though tbe DM us right and not being unreasonable. RAW in the PHB if they can see you you can't hide. Theoretically you can if you break line of sight eg sneak attack, move behind total cover, bonus action hide.

Having partial cover you can't do it.

RAI you can apparently.

RAW says if they can't see you clearly. RAW also says that a lightfoot halfling CAN hide behind a larger creature, which explicitly indicates that, in that case, the lightfoot halfling cannot be seen clearly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry, where are you pulling this from? Page numbers are helpful. The PHB I have says the GM determines if the situation allows hiding, but there's a HUGE preponderance of evidence that it can be done, and especially direct evidence that a lightfoot halfling can hide freely behind a larger creature. Ruling that you cannot hide in combat is possible, sure, but at this point you're not actually relying on the PHB, but instead taking one statement out of context and deciding that's the only important thing there.

I mean, I'm a huge proponent of "GM decides" being the core mechanic of 5e, but it's quite a thing to say that you can't hide in combat given the preponderance of evidence otherwise in just the PHB.

RAW says if they can't see you clearly. RAW also says that a lightfoot halfling CAN hide behind a larger creature, which explicitly indicates that, in that case, the lightfoot halfling cannot be seen clearly.

I said previously a halfling can do it once.

When they're seen they're spotted and can't hide. Maybe at perfect a perfect angle which provides total cover.

But it's not clear even you can't claim it's definitive in the PHB only ergo the DM was correct.

That's a problem when you have multiple sources some people may not be familiar with eg errata and twitter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I said previously a halfling can do it once.

RAW is that the halfling can do it as often as they like. There is no limit on use at all.

When they're seen they're spotted and can't hide. Maybe at perfect a perfect angle which provides total cover.

No, the lightfoot halfing ability is:

You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

This says, directly, that you can attempt to hide in this case. There's no double check that the GM thinks you can be seen, here, this specific rule absolutely trumps the general.

But it's not clear even you can't claim it's definitive in the PHB only ergo the DM was correct.

I can claim it's clear -- it's as clear as any other rule in the DMG.

That's a problem when you have multiple sources some people may not be familiar with eg errata and twitter.

No, it's not a multiple source issue. It's clear wording on the halfling ability and the clear wording of specific trumps general. We don't even need to know the general rules for hiding, because the lightfoot ability is the specific one here and controls.

 

[Zardnaar]

RAW is that the halfling can do it as often as they like. There is no limit on use at all.

No, the lightfoot halfing ability is:

You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

This says, directly, that you can attempt to hide in this case. There's no double check that the GM thinks you can be seen, here, this specific rule absolutely trumps the general.

I can claim it's clear -- it's as clear as any other rule in the DMG.

No, it's not a multiple source issue. It's clear wording on the halfling ability and the clear wording of specific trumps general. We don't even need to know the general rules for hiding, because the lightfoot ability is the specific one here and controls.

Point got confuzzled. Never has come up in a game due to no halflings rogues being played.

Since it's a halfling ability though it seems to imply normal rogues can't do it.

DM is wrong here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Point got confuzzled. Never has come up in a game due to no halflings rogues being played.

Since it's a halfling ability though it seems to imply normal rogues can't do it.

DM is wrong here.

Yes, none lightfoot rogues cannot automatically hide behind larger creatures. This doesn't indicate, at all, that they cannot hide in combat in other ways.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, none lightfoot rogues cannot automatically hide behind larger creatures. This doesn't indicate, at all, that they cannot hide in combat in other ways.

It a maybe for me. You would need unusual circumstances or make an effort to pull it off. .

There's a lot of cross referening required in 5E sometimes. Had similar issues around lighting due to things like twilight clerics and gloomstalker rangers thankfully not in the same party.

 

[Nefermandias]

Forget about lightfoot halflings and the need for total cover or heavily obscurement for anyone else who's not a halfling for a second... The DM in question is claiming that hiding in combat is not possible AT ALL!
How come we have people here defending that as a reasonable ruling?

 

[Li Shenron]

People standing in a heavily obscured area or with total cover in relation to the opponent CAN HIDE. It's that simple, really. This shouldn't be up for debate.
You can't see things behind a wall or in total darkness.

You know, I always (meaning, in every edition) have the feeling that when talking about hiding, half of the people have in mind that moving is part of hiding, and the other half that you hide after you move.

Having either of these mental pictures leads to very different reasonings on the actual rules, and possibly irreconcilable opinions.