D&D 5E (2014) Vs Vecna battle simulations.

[Flamestrike]

https://i.*****.com/3sDEfOh.png

Malek Succeeded with a 36 on Stealth, Moved along the right wall Firing his shortbow around the middle of his move so the pillar would not be in the way. Hitting for 43 Damage. He took 9 Damage from Fell Rebuke in return and Vecna teleported behind the bottom left pillar breaking line of sight with everyone. Thought they can all see the shimmering barrier of his Globe. Vecna also got a 13 a natural 1 on his Concentration Save, and is forced to use one of his LRs to keep the Globe up.

Hjalman's turn. (Reminder anyone who wants to can decide what Hjalman does)

Dungeons & Dragons | The Official Home of D&D

www.dndbeyond.com

Doesn't Vecna have 120 feet true sight?

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course.

More to the actual point I'm trying to make: What differentiates the rogue crouching down behind the parapet after taking a bow shot from the wizard who is nearby doing the same thing after shooting a fire bolt? Why does the rogue, due to bonus-action "hiding" behind the parapet, get to have a another chance at advantage at their next bow shot but the wizard does not get that same chance at advantage on their next fire bolt?

The circumstances are the same. The enemy can clearly see both PCs duck behind cover after their respective attacks. Are we to assume the wizard is automatically noisily crouching and the rogue may or may not be?

The Wizard can make a Dexterity check to try to hide behind the parapet, if they want to, same as the rogue can. It’s just that since it takes the Wizard an action to do so, they’ll need to wait for their next turn to cast fire bolt, giving their opponents plenty of opportunity to spot them in the interim, which should be pretty easy given that they, you know, watched the wizard hide behind the parapet.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm pulling for Malek and the party here, just as I am a fan of the PCs at our table. I just wouldn't automatically grant a Hide roll to someone trying to Hide in the exact same spot each round without some other compensating factors thrown in. Clearly, others are ruling differently here and that's fine.

You italicize “the exact same spot” as if any rule suggests that makes a difference.

 

[MarkB]

Of course.

More to the actual point I'm trying to make: What differentiates the rogue crouching down behind the parapet after taking a bow shot from the wizard who is nearby doing the same thing after shooting a fire bolt? Why does the rogue, due to bonus-action "hiding" behind the parapet, get to have a another chance at advantage at their next bow shot but the wizard does not get that same chance at advantage on their next fire bolt?

So since you brought it up, let me turn the question around: If the rogue gains no benefit from hiding once combat has started, why did the 5e designers give him the ability to hide as a bonus action?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The Wizard can make a Dexterity check to try to hide behind the parapet, if they want to, same as the rogue can. It’s just that since it takes the Wizard an action to do so, they’ll need to wait for their next turn to cast fire bolt, giving their opponents plenty of opportunity to spot them in the interim, which should be pretty easy given that they, you know, watched the wizard hide behind the parapet.

You italicize “the exact same spot” as if any rule suggests that makes a difference.

To me, hiding in the exact same spot is not hiding at all - especially when your location has just been revealed and you're noticed going into that same spot. It's the whole "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." That circumstance is NOT appropriate for hiding, to me.

I dunno. Maybe you have a point that I'm placing too much weight on the word "hide".

 

[Charlaquin]

So since you brought it up, let me turn the question around: If the rogue gains no benefit from hiding once combat has started, why did the 5e designers give him the ability to hide as a bonus action?

To be fair to @Swarmkeeper I don’t think they’re saying hiding in combat shouldn’t be possible. Just that hiding in the same spot multiple times in a row shouldn’t be possible without some other factors at play.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So since you brought it up, let me turn the question around: If the rogue gains no benefit from hiding once combat has started, why did the 5e designers give him the ability to hide as a bonus action?

I hope I didn't imply the rogue (or any other class for that matter) gains no benefit from hiding once in combat. That's not it at all. I just take issue with claiming any character can attempt hide in the same spot under the same circumstances even after their location has been revealed. Clearly this is not something that is bothering others... and I was worried we're derailing the thread but I suppose we need to do something to pass the time while we're waiting for Vecna to act!

 

[Charlaquin]

To me, hiding in the exact same spot is not hiding at all - especially when your location has just been revealed and you're noticed going into that same spot. It's the whole "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." That circumstance is NOT appropriate for hiding, to me.

I dunno. Maybe you have a point that I'm placing too much weight on the word "hide".

I think you are. If you assume that being “hidden” means the creatures you are hidden from don’t know where you are, then yeah, it would be ridiculous for it to be possible to hide behind a static object like a pillar in combat, where creatures are generally assumed to be alert and aware. The existence of the Lightfoot Halfling’s Naturually Stealthy feature, which explicitly allows them to do exactly that, is to me proof positive that this cannot what “hidden” means. Given that the only listed condition for hiding is that you can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you have to beat the creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) with a a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and and given that you stop being hidden if the creature can see you clearly, I think there is a clear interpretation of what “hidden” means that is consistent with all of these facts: It means you are currently unseen and unheard by the creature(s) you’re hidden from. This does not in any way guarantee that you will remain unseen and unheard, or prevent the creature from attempting to see or hear you, which should be pretty easy for them to do if they just watched you duck behind a pillar (or a Medium-sized ally). In the meantime though, if you make an attack roll against them before they have the opportunity to do that (which only a rogue or a goblin can do without special assistance like an action surge or the haste spell), you’ll have advantage due to being unseen and unheard at the time you make the attack. And if for some reason the creature decides to try to attack you from a position where they can’t see you, they’ll have disadvantage on that attack.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The Wizard can make a Dexterity check to try to hide behind the parapet, if they want to, same as the rogue can. It’s just that since it takes the Wizard an action to do so, they’ll need to wait for their next turn to cast fire bolt, giving their opponents plenty of opportunity to spot them in the interim, which should be pretty easy given that they, you know, watched the wizard hide behind the parapet.

Just digging into this a bit more.

To clarify: I indicated (or tried to indicate) that the wizard and the rogue both popped up from behind the parapet, both made a ranged attack which reveals their location to the enemies, then both ducked behind the same parapet (presumably giving the rogue an opportunity to bonus action hide and... not so much for the wizard). Next round... they both pop up and make a ranged attack.

Some (okay, most) are saying that the rogue has a chance at Advantage on this attack due to "hiding", while I think we all agree that the wizard does not get a chance at Advantage due to "hiding". What's going on here mechanically and narratively that makes sense if both characters are acting basically the same under the same circumstances?

(And I hope I haven't butchered this example... but... then again I did invoke an example... so I partly deserve any pain and frustration that might be coming my way... )

 

[Flamestrike]

To me, hiding in the exact same spot is not hiding at all - especially when your location has just been revealed and you're noticed going into that same spot. It's the whole "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." That circumstance is NOT appropriate for hiding, to me.

I dunno. Maybe you have a point that I'm placing too much weight on the word "hide".

It's irrelevant anyway. Vecna has Truesight to 120'.

Accordingly he can simultaneously see into the Ethereal plane, so he can see straight through the pillar (in addition to ignoring illusions, darkness and invisibility).

It's actually largely impossible to Hide from him at all within 120' of him.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just digging into this a bit more.

To clarify: I indicated (or tried to indicate) that the wizard and the rogue both popped up from behind the parapet, both made a ranged attack which reveals their location to the enemies, then both ducked behind the same parapet (presumably giving the rogue an opportunity to bonus action hide and... not so much for the wizard). Next round... they both pop up and make a ranged attack.

Some (okay, most) are saying that the rogue has a chance at Advantage on this attack due to "hiding", while I think we all agree that the wizard does not get a chance at Advantage due to "hiding". What's going on here mechanically and narratively that makes sense if both characters are acting basically the same under the same circumstances?

(And I hope I haven't butchered this example... but... then again I did invoke an example... so I partly deserve any pain and frustration that might be coming my way... )

Ok, I think I misunderstood the example at first. So, were the rogue and the wizard both hidden behind the parapet at the start of their respective turns? If so, I would grant them both advantage on their attack rolls. Afterwards, the rogue could duck back behind the parapet and use a bonus action to try to hide again with Cunning Action, though I don’t think doing so would be the best use of their bonus action given that the enemies would know exactly where the rogue was hiding and could easily move to a position from which they could see the rogue (assuming such a position exists within range of their movement), therefore rendering the rogue no longer hidden from them. The wizard could also duck back behind the parapet on their turn, but lacking any ability to try to hide as a bonus action, and having already used their action to attack, the only benefit they would get from doing so is whatever cover the parapet provides. And, of course, having seen the wizard do so, the enemies could move to a position from which they have a clear view of the wizard on their turns, (provided such a position exists within range of their movement).