Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8044856" data-attributes="member: 2525">The &quot;run out into the open&quot; ruling is relevant, but these others are equally relevant to us:Q: &quot;Issue that came up most often at Winter Fantasy was rogues wanting to always hide around corner, next end move out and attack hidden. &quot;A: &quot;That's a legitimate use of Cunning Action. &quot;Q: &quot;my main problem is can a rogue attack with advantage thanks to hiding. &quot;A: &quot;Yes&quot;Q: &quot;say if the rogue has to come from behind corner/tree/cover to get a line of sight, that's ok? &quot;A: &quot;Yes&quot;The way we've read this combination of answers along with &quot;running out in the open&quot; rulings is you can &quot;pop out&quot; (move) one square from hiding to attack (melee or ranged) and gain advantage, but if you have to &quot;run out&quot; away from your cover to &quot;the open&quot; beyond an adjacent space you lose the effect of being hidden.This is sort of a &quot;pop out and attack&quot; vs &quot;run out in the open and attack&quot; distinction. It's the way we've made the &quot;move out and attack hidden&quot; ruling and the &quot;run out into the open&quot; not mutually exclusive rulings. Because as they are written, I don't see how you could reconcile them easily otherwise. Do you?He's clearly saying there are circumstances where you can come out from being hidden and attack with advantage due to being hidden, and I have no idea what rule would support &quot;but only from range and not melee&quot; as the rules do not make any such distinction. You should be able to see someone 10' away from with a crossbow as easily as someone 10' away from you with a glaive or 5' away with a short sword, and he doesn't cite any rule that makes a distinction like that. So how do you reconcile those two rulings without the &quot;pop out&quot; interpretation we use?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 8044856, member: 2525"] The "run out into the open" ruling is relevant, but these others are equally relevant to us: Q: "Issue that came up most often at Winter Fantasy was rogues wanting to always hide around corner, next end [B]move out[/B] [B]and attack hidden[/B]. " A: "That's a legitimate use of Cunning Action. " Q: "my main problem is can a rogue attack with advantage thanks to hiding. " A: "Yes" Q: "say if the rogue has to [B]come from behind corner/tree/cover[/B] to get a line of sight, that's ok? " A: "Yes" The way we've read this combination of answers along with "running out in the open" rulings is you can "pop out" (move) one square from hiding to attack (melee or ranged) and gain advantage, but if you have to "run out" away from your cover to "the open" beyond an adjacent space you lose the effect of being hidden. This is sort of a "pop out and attack" vs "run out in the open and attack" distinction. It's the way we've made the "move out and attack hidden" ruling and the "run out into the open" not mutually exclusive rulings. Because as they are written, I don't see how you could reconcile them easily otherwise. Do you? He's clearly saying there are circumstances where you can come out from being hidden and attack with advantage due to being hidden, and I have no idea what rule would support "but only from range and not melee" as the rules do not make any such distinction. You should be able to see someone 10' away from with a crossbow as easily as someone 10' away from you with a glaive or 5' away with a short sword, and he doesn't cite any rule that makes a distinction like that. So how do you reconcile those two rulings without the "pop out" interpretation we use? [/QUOTE]

Verification