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

[Li Shenron]

As for a Rogue hiding behind a column, firing a bow, and then hiding again... I allow it! I see it kind of like gun fighters in a Western Film ducking down behind the horse trough, shooting, then ducking down again. Even though the enemy knows where they are, the enemy is also getting distracted by the barbarian hacking away at them, and isn't using all their awareness to keep track of when the rogue will be popping out again.

There are many ways to handle this.

First of all, the Rogue can just use her movement to move 5ft out of the column, shoot at no penalty (but also no advantage), then go back behind total cover where she cannot be targeted by almost anything. It is a VERY good situation even without advantage. But it can't be used to represent a western stand-off between 2 enemies only, or it will never end.

Another way is to model the situation as 3/4 cover constantly, buying into the idea that combat is simultaneous so the AC bonus represent the average protection you get while continuously popping out and back without moving much. This is perhaps the best for a stand-off except that it makes it boring (although I must say I actually think western stand-offs are usually extremely boring in any case).

On the other hand I don't see any convincing reason why standing behind a fixed obstacle should ever grant an advantage to your attacks after the first. If you CHANGE the place you're striking from behind, and manage to do so unnoticed, then sure. Otherwise you've revealed your position and for me there is not enough ground to grant a Dexterity check to hide again in the same place.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Hiding in combat cannot be outright impossible if the PHB has a combat action called "Hide"

However, as a house rule, your DM is certainly saving everyone from a lot of headaches, and that can be a good thing for some groups.

 

[jayoungr]

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

Hiding isn't always usable every turn either. You have to roll a successful stealth check every time, and it also means that you can't use your bonus action for anything else, like dashing or disengaging--or aiming, which would guarantee advantage without having to roll the stealth check first.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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 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.

I think you’re exactly right.

 

[Oofta]

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 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.

It also says on page 177 of the PHB under the section "Hiding" that

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.​

So whether or not you maintain stealth while you can be clearly seen (which you need in most cases to target) is up to the DM. I disagree with the OP's DM's ruling that a rogue can never get advantage from being hidden in combat. I also think it's completely within the rules to have some give and take to establish a different feel to the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree. The statement that, "he shouldn’t really need to make any other argument than referring to that," clearly indicates that game authority means there's no accountability at the social contract level. Honestly, statements like this are so well ingrained in the D&D legacy that it's hard to notice them if you aren't looking for them.

That statement was pretty specific to the rules for stealth, which say the DM decides when it’s possible to hide. If the DM says it isn’t possible to hide in combat, RAW supports that. I think it’s a bad ruling, but it’s supported by RAW, and the only argument a DM ruling that way needs to make. Obviously players can still express that they dislike that ruling and explain why, and a good DM will listen and take their opinions into account.

A GM has in game authority to make a ruling, yes, but this does not insulate her from having to explain it in the social contract. The GM in question severely abuses this, starting with, 'it's my game, not yours, so shut up,' and ending with emotional blackmail. At no point does the role of GM allow either to be acceptable.

Yeah, I don’t think @jayoungr ’s DM handled the situation appropriately at all.

 

[Plaguescarred]

You can definitly take the Hide action in combat.

While you normally have to be unseen to try to hide (wether heavily obscured, invisible or foes blinded), some creatures specifically have the ability to hide when they are seen (Naturally Stealthy, Mask of the Wild, Skulker etc).

Creatures in combat generally know the location of each others unless they hide. That is to say that you usually always know the last known location of a hidden creature that become concealed but wether you can safely guess it or not afterward, the benefit of being unseen and unheard remains in effect.

In other word, knowing the location of a creature does not prevent it from trying to hide, but it must be unseen or have a special ability to do so.

 

[jayoungr]

It also says on page 177 of the PHB under the section "Hiding" that

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.​

The key word there is "approach" (bolded). Popping up from behind cover to shoot an arrow does not constitute approaching the creature, in my opinion. The situation you're quoting sounds more like a case where the rogue wants to sneak up on a creature and attack it in melee (backstab).

I also think it's completely within the rules to have some give and take to establish a different feel to the game.

Sure. The way I'd handle that would be to up the difficulty for the stealth check to hide: maybe give the enemy a +5 to passive Pereception to simulate advantage, for example.

But yes, that's just the way I'd handle it at my table and other people can absolutely do it differently.

 

[Plaguescarred]

An elf that hides in a 5' bushes in a plain or a halfling that hide behind the only ally in the room still become unseen and unheard, but the other benefit confered by being hidden is completly irrelevant since the space to guess their location is obvious. That is the penality of hiding in obvious spot basically.

But that elf in lightly obscured bushes is unseen just as if one was standing in a 5' heavily obscured bushes, as you loose sight of it being concealed whatsoever.

 

[Nefermandias]

An elf that hides in a 5' bushes in a plain or a halfling that hide behind the only ally in the room still become unseen and unheard, but the other benefit confered by being hidden is completly irrelevant since the space to guess their location is obvious. That is the penality of hiding in obvious spot basically.

But that elf in lightly obscured bushes is unseen just as if one was standing in a 5' heavily obscured bushes, as you loose sight of it being concealed whatsoever.

Being unseen gives you advantage on attack rolls.

Having advantage on your attack roll triggers Sneak Attack damage.

Seriously, people the mental gymnastics you guys go through just to negate the rogue's primary ability is astonishing.