D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[Rodney Mulraney]

I'm in utter disbelief that you think references to combat in d&d refer to a single PC vs one or more enemies. It's the exact opposite. If combat typically refers to anything it refers to the group of PCs fighting one or more enemies.

I agree the default party size is 4 pcs after all. But the 4 pcs might be engaged with different creatures, I think the question of if the creature being hidden from is being distracted by default by another pc or not is quite important and also quite fuzzy - it needs to be said. Hence according to cooperative rules of communication, it would have been said if it was the case. As the texts stand it seems to fit more in with our background knowledge that the creature being hid from was not engaged by some other pc, since the implicature is that they are not "distracted", hence they are able to be "aware and on lookout for danger".

I mean your interpretation suggests that a barb swinging an axe in your face does not count as a distraction. We already know that in combat different pcs are not always engaged, they are just going in initiative order with the imminent threat of an attack.

 

[Mistwell]

But Hide is an Action option for people in Combat - under chapter 8 of the PHB - Combat. Also it is an easy way to get advantage for rogues, who also can quite early on do it as a bonus action.

Yes, I am not saying it's impossible, I am saying it was never intended to be a regular thing or a primary tactic. I don't think the "circumstances" were supposed to be "almost every single combat". Nor do I think re-hiding after attacking was intended to be common at all. It's really that later part that poses such oddities for many DMs. You reveal your position after you attack from hiding. Re-hiding is a pretty difficult thing to do when you just shot something with an arrow and it knows with certainty where you are and that you're very likely to try and do it again in 6 seconds or less.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

Yes, I am not saying it's impossible, I am saying it was never intended to be a regular thing or a primary tactic. I don't think the "circumstances" were supposed to be "almost every single combat". Nor do I think re-hiding after attacking was intended to be common at all. It's really that later part that poses such oddities for many DMs. You reveal your position after you attack from hiding. Re-hiding is a pretty difficult thing to do when you just shot something with an arrow and it knows with certainty where you are and that you're very likely to try and do it again in 6 seconds or less.

Well they dont have a lot of health and they get no extra attacks, they are based on sneak dmg, which is triggered by advantage and get a way to trigger that without losing their action at a low level. It seems to me how the class was designed.

But not "almost every single combat", but I think, "almost every turn of theirs, in combat".

 

[Mistwell]

Well they dont have a lot of health and they get no extra attacks, they are based on sneak dmg, which is triggered by advantage

It's triggered by any ally standing next to the creature. Which is way way way more common than advantage. You don't need advantage to sneak attack in 5e.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Elfcrusher, I fully appreciate the "cheesyness" of "Attack-Hide-Attack-Hide-Attack-Hide" from rogues - pesky rogues... but nerfing their class over it seems a bit harsh.

Also I get some people only want a roleplay rich game, and I think they are cool. Everyone is the master of their own games. I still feel sorry for rogues though - other classes don't have to score high on roleplaying to use the core mechanics of their classes, or be forced to multiclass because they lack imagination of story telling.

All these issues are effectively solved if as DMs we are upfront about how we are going to handle different classes in the pre-game session, so players can accept the challenge or choose a less stressful class before the actual game starts.

Funny, my experience has been that it's so easy for rogues to get Advantage and/or "ally within 5 feet" that they almost always get Sneak Attack anyway, without the need to hide every round. And for strange party compositions (including solo campaigns) there's always Swashbuckler.

The one scenario where that's not true is archer rogues attacking ranged enemies. But, honestly, I don't have much sympathy for that case. Maybe because I think it was a mistake to support (encourage?) archer rogues in the first place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I am not saying it's impossible, I am saying it was never intended to be a regular thing or a primary tactic. I don't think the "circumstances" were supposed to be "almost every single combat". Nor do I think re-hiding after attacking was intended to be common at all. It's really that later part that poses such oddities for many DMs. You reveal your position after you attack from hiding. Re-hiding is a pretty difficult thing to do when you just shot something with an arrow and it knows with certainty where you are and that you're very likely to try and do it again in 6 seconds or less.

1. Hiding is called out as something you can do in combat.

2. Rogues get the ability to hide as a bonus action at level 2.

3. Rogues have stealth as a class skill and can take expertise in that skill.

4. Sneak attack is triggered by advantage. Yes, also by adjacent allies, but tgat doesn't at all remove tgat it's triggered by advantage as well.

All of these things point to a pretty clear design intention that hiding in combat is a valid rogue tactic.

 

[FrogReaver]

1. Hiding is called out as something you can do in combat.

2. Rogues get the ability to hide as a bonus action at level 2.

3. Rogues have stealth as a class skill and can take expertise in that skill.

4. Sneak attack is triggered by advantage. Yes, also by adjacent allies, but tgat doesn't at all remove tgat it's triggered by advantage as well.

All of these things point to a pretty clear design intention that hiding in combat is a valid rogue tactic.

Not really IMO. If it was a valid-"nearly every turn" rogue tactic it wouldn't heavily favor being a ranged rogue while leaving the melee rogue out.

 

[Mistwell]

1. Hiding is called out as something you can do in combat.

2. Rogues get the ability to hide as a bonus action at level 2.

3. Rogues have stealth as a class skill and can take expertise in that skill.

4. Sneak attack is triggered by advantage. Yes, also by adjacent allies, but tgat doesn't at all remove tgat it's triggered by advantage as well.

All of these things point to a pretty clear design intention that hiding in combat is a valid rogue tactic.

None of which refutes, in any way, what I said. It's almost like you're repeating what others have said, while using more words than them, and which has already had a response

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree the default party size is 4 pcs after all. But the 4 pcs might be engaged with different creatures, I think the question of if the creature being hidden from is being distracted by default by another pc or not is quite important and also quite fuzzy - it needs to be said. Hence according to cooperative rules of communication, it would have been said if it was the case. As the texts stand it seems to fit more in with our background knowledge that the creature being hid from was not engaged by some other pc, since the implicature is that they are not "distracted", hence they are able to be "aware and on lookout for danger".

I mean your interpretation suggests that a barb swinging an axe in your face does not count as a distraction. We already know that in combat different pcs are not always engaged, they are just going in initiative order with the imminent threat of an attack.

A barb swinging an axe at enemy is definitely "distracting". The question is whether that alone is enough of a distraction for him to lose track of the rogue. In general I say not because of the level of awareness the book suggests that enemies in combat generally have. Being engaged with an enemy in melee combat is a common enough occurrence that I can't believe the rules meant for that to be an exception

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree the default party size is 4 pcs after all. But the 4 pcs might be engaged with different creatures, I think the question of if the creature being hidden from is being distracted by default by another pc or not is quite important and also quite fuzzy - it needs to be said. Hence according to cooperative rules of communication, it would have been said if it was the case. As the texts stand it seems to fit more in with our background knowledge that the creature being hid from was not engaged by some other pc, since the implicature is that they are not "distracted", hence they are able to be "aware and on lookout for danger".

I mean your interpretation suggests that a barb swinging an axe in your face does not count as a distraction. We already know that in combat different pcs are not always engaged, they are just going in initiative order with the imminent threat of an attack.

A barb swinging an axe at enemy is definitely "distracting". The question is whether that alone is enough of a distraction for him to lose track of the rogue. In general I say not because of the level of awareness the book suggests that enemies in combat generally have. Being engaged with an enemy in melee combat is a common enough occurrence that I can't believe the rules meant for that to be an exception