Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jayoungr" data-source="post: 8373527" data-attributes="member: 6702445">I was startled to have a rules argument tonight with a group that I've been playing with since the start of 5E.&nbsp; For context, we were in the lair of Xipe, the oni, in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan.&nbsp; Three of the party were in melee with the oni, while two others (human warlock and halfling rogue) were attacking at range.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; (Note, before anyone asks:&nbsp; Yes, I also mentioned the new Aim action from Tasha's, but that's not what caused the argument).&nbsp; The DM, backed up by her husband, insisted that it's impossible to hide during combat.&nbsp; They pointed to the section on page 177 of the PHB that says &quot;You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly&quot; 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.&nbsp; But I was so caught off guard and so amazed at their position that I was reduced to the lamest possible argument--&quot;Well, my other DMs have always let me do it.&quot;&nbsp; To which the answer was, of course, &quot;Your other DMs are wrong.&quot;So ... am I and the three other DMs that I've played rogues under just wrong about this?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; (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 questionI 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.&nbsp; But the rogue is a halfling and the warlock, who was next to her, is a human.&nbsp; And Lightfoot halflings have the &quot;Naturally Stealthy&quot; ability, which says this:&nbsp; &quot;You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.&quot;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jayoungr, post: 8373527, member: 6702445"] 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 [i]Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan.[/i] 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 [i]cunning action[/i] 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 ... [i]am[/i] 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.) [b]Bonus extra question[/b] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification