D&D 5E Sneak Attack question

[DND_Reborn]

For ranged creatures they just need to run behind trees, bushes, walls, anything providing heavy obscurement to qualify as being out of line of sight and to use their action or bonus action to Hide. Once they are have done so, they are allowed to use their action / next action to lean out and fire their ranged weapon while Hidden, and thus their attacks are with advantage.

If the group is outside you'd need to be on open plains or something to have nothing to hide behind. And in dungeons usually you have corridors, stalactites, giant rocks, or even just out at a far enough distance to get out of the darkvision's dim light radius to qualify being out of line of sight.

If a DM doesn't allow for PCs to do this... I'd say they were being stingy personally.

We run it a bit more complex than that.

First, your target can't see you in the act of hiding. If they do, they know where you are and your "hiding" is really just taking cover--a completely different thing.

Second, your Dexterity (Stealth) check has to stand up against their Wisdom (Perception) check to show you have successfully "hidden".

After that, as long as you don't need to move more than 5 feet (as per JC's "ruling") you are still effectively hidden and gain advantage on your next attack.

But gaining advantage is not simply a matter of stepping out from behind cover, shooting, and moving back behind cover--at least not at our tables.

Otherwise, yeah one of the best ways to gain advantage is to be outside their range of darkvision, in which case they are blind and automatically fail their Wisdom (Perception) checks based on sight. Easy to gain advantage then.

None of us find those rules "stingy", but YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

For ranged creatures they just need to run behind trees, bushes, walls, anything providing heavy obscurement to qualify as being out of line of sight and to use their action or bonus action to Hide. Once they are have done so, they are allowed to use their action / next action to lean out and fire their ranged weapon while Hidden, and thus their attacks are with advantage.

But if you’re popping out from whatever is keeping you from being seen clearly to attack, then you’re... no longer not being seen clearly...

Wood elves and lightfoot halflings happen to have abilities that allow them to hide in conditions that wouldn’t also prevent them from being able to see their target (though for lightfoot halflings, the ally they’re hiding behind would grant half cover to their target).

 

[DEFCON 1]

But if you’re popping out from whatever is keeping you from being seen clearly to attack, then you’re... no longer not being seen clearly...

Wood elves and lightfoot halflings happen to have abilities that allow them to hide in conditions that wouldn’t also prevent them from being able to see their target (though for lightfoot halflings, the ally they’re hiding behind would grant half cover to their target).

According to the Hiding sidebar on pg 177 while in combat you have to "come out of hiding and approach the creature" for it to usually see you. Firing out from behind the cover or leaning out, firing, and leaning back is not approaching the creature, so for my money you are not considered out in the open enough for it to have the chance to "usually see you". It also says that the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted... so the fact that you actually can be out in the open while you approach a target and still remain hidden (thus gaining advantage) so long as the target is distracted, tells me that not approaching the target means its even more likely you should be able to remain hidden.

But hey... as we all know the Stealth rules were written intentionally vague enough for everyone to come up with their own interpretations. So if people want to be stingy (my words) and not let PCs and monsters hide in combat and fire from within or behind it... that's up to them. But yeah, I do believe it's stingy, because it seems to me that the game specifically gave the Rogue the ability to Hide as a bonus action (meaning while in combat) so that they could both Hide and Attack on the same turn. For the DM to not actually let them do that seems completely counter to the spirit of the rules if nothing else (even if you believe the rules as written do not allow the rogue to do it.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

the game specifically gave the Rogue the ability to Hide as a bonus action (meaning while in combat) so that they could both Hide and Attack on the same turn.

Really? We rarely try to have a rogue hide in combat, it just isn't needed since they often are attacking a target which already has an enemy on them.

We use it more for when a rogue is trying to evade capture, and uses his bonus action to Hide so he can move and dash, keeping (hopefully) ahead of his pursuers that are also moving and dashing.

 

[Oofta]

According to the Hiding sidebar on pg 177 while in combat you have to "come out of hiding and approach the creature" for it to usually see you. Firing out from behind the cover or leaning out, firing, and leaning back is not approaching the creature, so for my money you are not considered out in the open enough for it to have the chance to "usually see you". It also says that the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted... so the fact that you actually can be out in the open while you approach a target and still remain hidden (thus gaining advantage) so long as the target is distracted, tells me that not approaching the target means its even more likely you should be able to remain hidden.

But hey... as we all know the Stealth rules were written intentionally vague enough for everyone to come up with their own interpretations. So if people want to be stingy (my words) and not let PCs and monsters hide in combat and fire from within or behind it... that's up to them. But yeah, I do believe it's stingy, because it seems to me that the game specifically gave the Rogue the ability to Hide as a bonus action (meaning while in combat) so that they could both Hide and Attack on the same turn. For the DM to not actually let them do that seems completely counter to the spirit of the rules if nothing else (even if you believe the rules as written do not allow the rogue to do it.)

If stealth was meant to do what you say, it would say that. It doesn't. The spirit of the rules is that the DM gets to decide based on how they run the game.

I would allow someone to come out from behind cover and get advantage under certain circumstances but not others. That may not be your preferences, but it is what the rules state.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If stealth was meant to do what you say, it would say that. It doesn't. The spirit of the rules is that the DM gets to decide based on how they run the game.

I would allow someone to come out from behind cover and get advantage under certain circumstances but not others. That may not be your preferences, but it is what the rules state.

Of course the DM decides... that's a given. That's not even the spirit of the rules, that's pretty much stated outright-- the DM makes rulings as they see fit. So with that being the given-- that the DM ultimately gets to decide how the game (in this case stealth) will be run at their table-- what's your reasoning for why the designers of the game gave Rogues the feature to use Hide as a bonus action? They had to have done it for a reason.

If Hiding was only meant to be done out of combat there would have been no reason to give them this ability because actions and bonus actions only occur during combat when there is initiative order. So since they do have it specially as a bonus action, it implies something, doesn't it? Seems to me (and is certainly not any kind of wild speculation here) that if Rogues get to Hide as a bonus action, then it's because they are meant to be able to Hide during combat when bonus actions get taken. I don't see any other possible interpretation. So to me... the spirit of that feature is that hiding during combat should be and is meant to be allowed-- barring of course the DM's generic ability to make Rulings and restrict any and all rules they don't want to use. But the designers have no idea what those specific DM rulings will ultimately be, so they design for the default game. So what would be the default game where a Rogue would need to have Hide as a bonus action feature... but not use it during combat?

Maybe you know of one? If you do, please let me know as I'd love to hear it. Cause I've been wracking my brain trying to figure it out.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe you know of one? If you do, please let me know as I'd love to hear it. Cause I've been wracking my brain trying to figure it out.

"Combat" is sort of misleading, "encounter" might be better?

As I already said, Hide as a bonus action is primarily used to escape capture. Just like Dodge and Disengage are used for defense or to flee battle without risking injury.

DMs who have goblins shoot, then "hide" to shoot again with advantage the next round are often abusing the system. You cannot hide under observation. Viewers know you are there. This is why the action is really stepping out from cover, shooting, and moving back under cover. Now, in ambushes, etc. the first attacks might be with advantage because you hid before the viewers saw you, but after that unless the cover is enough for you to move your position (significantly IMO), you won't get advantage.

Now we all know the stealth rules are very open, but being able to attack from cover is bad enough IMO, you don't need to gain advantage as well.

 

[Oofta]

Of course the DM decides... that's a given. That's not even the spirit of the rules, that's pretty much stated outright-- the DM makes rulings as they see fit. So with that being the given-- that the DM ultimately gets to decide how the game (in this case stealth) will be run at their table-- what's your reasoning for why the designers of the game gave Rogues the feature to use Hide as a bonus action? They had to have done it for a reason.

If Hiding was only meant to be done out of combat there would have been no reason to give them this ability because actions and bonus actions only occur during combat when there is initiative order. So since they do have it specially as a bonus action, it implies something, doesn't it? Seems to me (and is certainly not any kind of wild speculation here) that if Rogues get to Hide as a bonus action, then it's because they are meant to be able to Hide during combat when bonus actions get taken. I don't see any other possible interpretation. So to me... the spirit of that feature is that hiding during combat should be and is meant to be allowed-- barring of course the DM's generic ability to make Rulings and restrict any and all rules they don't want to use. But the designers have no idea what those specific DM rulings will ultimately be, so they design for the default game. So what would be the default game where a Rogue would need to have Hide as a bonus action feature... but not use it during combat?

Maybe you know of one? If you do, please let me know as I'd love to hear it. Cause I've been wracking my brain trying to figure it out.

Well, I never said hiding in combat was never useful. Just that it's not the expectation that you can hide every round every encounter. If there's a rogue in the party who wants to hide during combat, I'll try to set up scenarios where it's possible sometimes. Just don't expect to hide behind the lone tree on an empty plain and attack from hidden more than once. You may not even get once if they saw you move behind the tree or are looking that direction in the first place.

If there are guards at a door at the end of a long hallway with no other approach and the guards are alert, I'm sorry but I don't care how good you do on your stealth check they're going to see you when you peak around the corner unless you are invisible. On the other hand if they're guarding a door on a busy street you may be able to be hidden from them by firing from the roof. After that first time though they know there's a threat from the roof so you need to move to the alley. Maybe next round you can take advantage of the confusion or teleport to get over to the cart across the street.

In other words, you need to be constantly changing position, approaching from an unexpected direction while the guard is being distracted by something else like that raging barbarian trying to chop their head off. At least that's how I run it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'll agree with you both on the idea of needing to actually move away from where you went into cover as a valid extension of the hiding rules. As you say, it seems perfectly valid and logical to say you can't just duck behind a lone tree and then lean back out and shoot to get the advantage. I can go along with that idea, and in fact is something that I have also required of players and monsters in the past-- to move away from their initial position while out of line of sight to pop out in a new location to fire (for me, it's usually 10').

That being said... especially when the encounters are outside or at longer ranges in the darkness outside of darkvision range, I've never even seen that be that much of a hardship for creatures to accomplish. So yeah... I myself find it perfect reasonable for monsters and/or PCs to duck behind some thick greenery or a rock wall... move their movement speed while behind cover, then pop up and fire from a new location and having that grant advantage. And have it happen fairly often in combats.

But that doesn't bother me. And the reason why is because honestly? Attacking with advantage is not that big a deal. People fighting get advantage granted to them all the time. A Faerie Fire will grant advantage. Guiding Bolts will grant advantage. A barbarian with the Wolf Totem will grant advantage. Bunches of other abilities will grant advantage in all manner of combats. So for a rogue to get advantage on like 2/3rds of their bow attacks via Hiding? Pretty much par for the course if you ask me and nothing I feel like I need to stomp on. Especially considering all it is is two attack rolls together for the better chance to hit and thus trigger Sneak Attack... which exactly what rogues in melee combat get when they attack with two weapons.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'll agree with you both on the idea of needing to actually move away from where you went into cover as a valid extension of the hiding rules. As you say, it seems perfectly valid and logical to say you can't just duck behind a lone tree and then lean back out and shoot to get the advantage. I can go along with that idea, and in fact is something that I have also required of players and monsters in the past-- to move away from their initial position while out of line of sight to pop out in a new location to fire (for me, it's usually 10').

I think a minimum of 10 feet is very reasonable. You can move 5 feet and still attack with advantage, but if you are seen taking cover, make your DEX (Stealth) roll, and move at least 10 feet, I would grant advantage on the next attack (provided their perception failed vs. your stealth, of course).

That being said... especially when the encounters are outside or at longer ranges in the darkness outside of darkvision range, I've never even seen that be that much of a hardship for creatures to accomplish. So yeah... I myself find it perfect reasonable for monsters and/or PCs to duck behind some thick greenery or a rock wall... move their movement speed while behind cover, then pop up and fire from a new location and having that grant advantage. And have it happen fairly often in combats.

Sure, when there is plenty of cover, or darkness beyond darkvision (when perception fails automatically), becoming "hidden" again to gain advantage should be possible. Again, this still involves the Hide check and contested by Perception.

And yes, there are SO many ways to gain advantage that it rarely is an issue at our tables. If there is suitable terrain and movement, with making the contested check, rogues should certainly benefit from Hiding.

As I mentioned, it just isn't needed IMO most of the time because the ranged rogues are typically shooting at targets already in melee, which allows their SA anyway. True, the advantage would offset the +2 cover bonus for shooting into melee, but with SS even that is no longer a factor.