Hello all,
I'm a DM and I am currently having an argument with one of my players. He plays a wood elf rogue and so far in combat he has stayed well away from the fight while attacking monsters and going into hiding every single round using his bonus action..
I have a hard time picturing this since a round is six seconds and I feel it's not realistically possible to shoot and hide and stay out of harms way every single round, meanwhile enjoying the benefits of advantage and sneak attacks while the rest of the group is getting all the damage and oftentimes does a lot less damage to enemies..
The PHB is not very helpful. Hide is a combat action and says that you cannot hide when a monster sees you. But since he is a rogue after every attack he just used a hide action to hide again.. Since he is usually well away from the fight I figure the monsters are not actively paying attention to him so I allow him to hide.. But it feels very overpowered..
Sure, as a DM I can tailor encounters and use the monsters/opponents to the best of my abilities to prevent him from hiding or using the sneak attack.. I can even fudge perception rolls. I can counter his stealth with special enemies or tactics but that is not really my style.. When the pc's run into a group of monsters (depending on the monsters) they generally attack logical targets (the fighters in the frontline).. Some more intelligent enemies might go for the spellcaster if they can be identified but in general a monster or opponent will not see the diffence that easily.. I sometimes even give my players the option to divide monsters when they are being attacked, since I think as a group you'd do that sort of stuff. I say something like: "So, the orcs are charging right into your group. Who will take their attacks?". I picture the average enemy will be caught up in the main fight and not worry about the back ranks..
So far so good, but the rogue insists he wants to hide and get that advantage bonus every single round.. He already has a large chance to make a sneak attack and of course if he starts the fight hidden I am okay with the advantage from being hidden but after giving away his position I am not okay with him going into hiding again.. Its like a neverending barrage of missile attacks without almost any risk of being attacked in return.. Meanwhile, the rest of the group (a fighter, druid, warlock and cleric) are taking the hits while they are actually missing some of their attacks. The rogue hits nearly every attack (because of the advantage) and does a crapload of damage (base damage for long bow + 2d6 every round + dex modifiers)..
I really don't like being so adamant on this. I usually try to discuss any unclear rules with my players but the player playing the rogue just won't budge.. Meanwhile, he is a numbers guy (and also a great roleplayer) and this playstyle is of course something he enjoys about the game.. I really don't want to take that away but I feel this endlessly attacking enemies from stealth and the massive damage is disrupting encounters and preventing the other players from taking their moment to shine..
So, how would you solve this? Or is there some rule about hiding I am not aware of that could solve this dilemma?
thanks!
Let him make the Stealth check with disadvatage after one or two times, since the monsters becomes more aware of his attacks. And remind him, that he can actually only hide, if there is something between him and the monsters which are hiding or he is able to use his woodelf trait.
And he can only keep his advantage on attack rolls, as long he can stay hidden, so if he just runs around a corner and comes back the same way, the enemies will see that, since it's obvious. If he comes from another side, give him a chance.
With these little things it becomes more reasonable. Being a rogue should give you a bit of sneakiness, but it's not a no-brainer.
It sounds like you're just not enjoying a rogue being in the party. Everything you've described is pretty much exactly what a rogue can do. Hiding every turn as a bonus action past level 3, attacking with advantage, sneak attack damage on top of normal damage. I mean nothing you say seems abnormal. Rogue's are designed to hide every turn and deal damage. Wood Elf allows the character to hide in circumstances that would normally not allow it to hide (in rain, folliage, etc..)
The restriction is that someone cannot hide if an enemy sees you. That's true. But Wood Elf bypasses that general rule by allowing to hide anyway, so as long as the character is in an environment that matches the ones in the racial feature he can hide even while being watched. This is the same language as the Halfling's hiding behind allies. Just because you're behind an ally doesn't mean opponents can't see you, yet you can still hide. Same thing for wood elf.
Now from what you're describing, the player has his character somewhere you both agree he can hide. He then attacks while hidden for advantage + sneak. Then uses his bonus action to hide in the same spot again. That's totally legal. What people will say like the post above, is that you should impose disadvantage on further rolls after the first. What I would tell you is not to do that. You're punishing your player for doing exactly what the class+race combo is designed to do basically. That's stupid. As a DM you should never punish players for doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.
I would suggest instead working as a DM to make the encounters more interesting. If he's hiding behind an overturned table, and is simply attacking + hiding every round, send some monsters to go get him. Instead of them just fighting hand to hand, have the opponents realize that there's a very deadly attacker who is hiding behind the table and they need to go stop him. Or use waves of monsters so that they don't get focused down.
I dont think that hiding all the time is a bad thing, just not always easy to do. There might not always be enough items to give light/heavy obscurement. The monster might get frustrated and run to where the PC last was to search him/her out, skirmishers are hard to hide from due to there moving all the time.
I’ve had the same issue with the Rogue in my party. As frustrating as it is for me as a DM, it’s perfectly legal so I can’t really do anything about it.
What was interesting was that the rest of the party eventually got frustrated that the Rogue got through every fight without taking a single hit. The other players basically said that part of every character’s role is to share the pain. The Rogue tried to explain that he was more effective hiding and shooting and staying out of melee, but after a while the other players finally said too bad.
In a few cases when things started going bad for the heroes the Rogue would flee. Better to live and fight another day then get into dangerous melee and help the party. After a few too many of these the rest of the PC told him he had to change his tactics to be a more active part of the party or he had to leave the party.
In this case the group policed themselves. The Rogue still does the hide and shoot, but only for a few rounds and then he gets into closer combat to share the danger.
Hiding is in the DM's hands, like all the 5e rules. In my game my ruling is that after a combat starts, it is very difficult or impossible to hide (but depends on all the circumstances). If enemies are watching the PC, generally they cant hide, unless they move to a large area where their location becomes uncertain. Just hiding behind a single barrel, or a single PC for example, doesnt usually cut it in my game. I might allow a hide check at disad, and/or give the watcher adv on their perception check (opposed roll). Alternatively you could allow them to hide, but not give adv on the subsequent attack, because the element of surprise has faded.
Mearls in fact tweeted on this issue, and said it's up the DM and "common sense" and that his ruling would be disad on subsequent hide checks after the first (referring to halfling ability).
The rules work for you, you are in charge of the game, just like the DMG says.
The only issue is these kinds of rulings should be brought to the players attention before they make their PCs, so everyone knows how valuable/powerful stealth is in your game before it starts. On the other hand, better late than never! Perhaps the player can retool his rogue, or make up another PC if it turns out stealth doesnt work how he thought it would.
This will be very situational. In a heavily wooded area with underbrush and plenty of places to hide, I would say it is completely OK to do this. In a dungeon, not so much.
What is the rogue using to hide behind?
How far has he moved in combat?
What is the intelligence of the monsters/NPCs?
How many are there? Few will be distracted by the melee, while many will mean some can break off to meet the 'unseen' threat.
How 'chaotic' is the combat? Are there creatures all over the place or is it in ordered ranks? A chaotic combat will give the rogue more distractions to use to advantage.
As someone else has pointed out, the rogue still has to make his or her Dexterity (Stealth) opposed check. At the very least, that must be with disadvantage due to fact that he has been seen (once). Assuming there is something to hide behind (furnishings etc), then the intelligent monsters will realise something is behind them and can Ready an action for when the rogue pops his head out again, or just send someone to find him.
The key phrase in the 'Hiding' sidebar (PHB177) is "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen".
- certain circumstances - this is situational
- the DM might (not will) allow it
- creature that is distracted - some may be focused on finding the hidden threat
- before you are seen - once seen, that's it, no more hiding unless the environment offers obscurement
So, with the right environment, the rogue can do all the hiding, moving and attacking he or she wants and countering it will be difficult for any monsters or NPCs but with a barer environment with little or no obscurement, the rogue will have a much harder time staying hidden and intelligent creatures will hunt him down if he is a significant threat.
[Edit]: Also, 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' (PHB195) - If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
- We tend to ignore sound when playing - can the monsters or NPCs hear the hidden rogue?
- Any attack, hit or miss, gives away the rogue's position i.e. no longer hidden, although cover rules may still apply.
cave2626 wrote:
There's a fair amount of controversy on this, but I've ruled that somebody hiding behind exactly the same cover over and over again is not going to be able to hide - the monsters know he's there.
A wood elf can get away with this a little easier in an area where there's heavy underbrush or other natural (outdoor) terrain but I rule that a rogue can just duck behind the same tree and expect to pop out every time.
Just because the enemy knows where you are doesn't make you not hidden. Knowing where you are and SEEING you are completely different things. If you have a feature that lets you hide under X circumstance, then you can ALWAYS hide under that circumstance barring things that negate that circumstance. Take lightfoot halflings for example. Their feature lets them use other medium creatures to hide behind. Full stop. A lightfoot halfling rogue can ALWAYS hide behind another medium or larger creature. It doesn't matter how many times the enemies have seen you move behind your ally. Knowing you are back there and actually seeing you are unrelated. Of course enemies can act intelligently on that knowledge and attempt to move around and negate your cover, making you no longer hidden, but as long as the requirements for your features are met, you are explicitly able to attempt to hide.
"Their feature lets them use other medium creatures to hide behind. Full stop. A lightfoot halfling rogue can ALWAYS hide behind another medium or larger creature."
I believe this is what you mean but they can "attempt to hide" (as per the Lightfoot description. They have to succeed on the opposed check.
El_Condoro wrote:
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Yes, that's true. If the attacker is hidden at the start of their move and they attack, they do so with advantage. Arguably, emerging from being hidden to attack now means the target can see the attacker (if looking in that direction) and advantage is lost.
Looking at the optional flanking rule (DMG252) I think it sits well with it. The basic assumption is any attack that comes from a creature's rear arc is done with advantage because the target can't see in that rear arc. I think for the rogue example in this thread I would table rule it that the rogue could get that advantage attack roll if he or she succeeds on the opposed check (assuming there is a reason to search for him) from the side and rear arcs but not from the front arc as the target knows there is something in the attacker's location and has faced that way, even if he can't see it. Doing so might open the target to attacks from other creatures in his rear arc.
BTW the facing rules would seem to be an advantage to the side with the most creatures, usually the monsters/NPCs at lower levels and the characters at higher levels (off topic, sorry).
One other thing is that if some rogue is hiding behind the same wagon or wall round after round and sticking the crossbow out and firing, there must be some reason the target doesn't just walk over to the rogue and murder him. I suspect that that reason is also something that would prevent the target from staring at the wagon or wall so as to see the precise moment when the crossbow comes out, even if the target knows with absolute certainty that it is going to happen at regular 6 second intervals from roughly the same location.
RE the facing rules, my group is still mulling it over, but one nice thing about them is that if someone has their back to you, you can move away from them without disengaging and not provoke an opportunity attack. Which is obviously sensible and I can't really think of any good reason why that shouldn't be the way things work. I wished they would have mentioned those kind of implications in that section instead of dealing with stuff like which side of your body your shield protects, which is a rule I suspect will never ever be used by anyone.
FreakFire74 wrote:
I would handle this in a few ways:
Create encounters in which the monsters hide as well. Try hiding in a forest where the trees might be enemies.
Create encounters with monsters that have the scent ability.
Create encounters where monsters can throw aoe attacks, such as fireballs or breath weapons.
Create encounters where there are environmental factors that may give penalties to hide, due to the weather or the terrain.
Involve more roleplaying into the hiding. Maybe the woodelf needs to prepare first, by painting his face to blend in with his current environment. If some more work goes into it, it feels more deserved.
Give -2 penalties on his hide for every time he repeatedly attacks from exactly the same spot.
Create encounters in less ordinary terrain, such as at sea, in a swamp, a desert etc.
Saelorn wrote:
I feel bad for some of the rogues in these games being talked about.
Might as well make the fighter fight unarmed from now on. Or force the wizard to only use cantrips.
There is a balance here, and I don't know what's going to work for your group. I've played with other people that had builds that basically never ever got targeted or if they did, were never ever hit because of some trick. In addition they did massive damage every single round because of a combination of feats and abilities. It was fun for the player, but annoyed pretty much everyone else at the table.
I'm not a big fan of the "my character always gets advantage every single attack and can never be targeted." Especially with this edition where rogues can get in their sneak attack much more simply. The problem is that if one person is playing an invincible uber-damage munchkin and everybody else is playing less-optimized build tensions are bound to arise. On the other hand, not every class/build needs to be completely optimized. Some characters should shine in certain situations, it' normally only an issue if it's the same character hogging the spotlight every fight, round after round.
Unless you want to implement house rules (bar certain feats/abilities) there's not a lot that can be done about it and as much as I don't think you should change the rules of the game you can try some different tactics now and then.
A few things to remember is that just because someone is hiding, doesn't necessarily mean that the enemies don't have a general idea of where they are.
In general I make it slightly difficult for rogues to get the benefit of hiding behind exactly the same cover and popping out to get advantage every round any more than I would allow it for the bad guys. If a rogue can move from cover to cover (while maintaining stealth) and change position drastically enough that the enemies don't know where they're coming from then it should work. But that trick is going to be limited by terrain and features of the area. So hiding behind the same tree and stepping from behind the cover is probably only going to work once. Hide behind a tree, pop out and then duck behind some rocks and fire from a flanking position? Sure.
But that situation may be fairly rare. Consider how to come up with different terrain features so that it works sometimes, but not others.
In addition you can (occasionally) have the bad guys call for reinforcements. Have the reinforcemnts circle around so that the rogue will have difficulties finding something to hide behind.
If a halfling is hiding behind the fighter, there's generally nothing to stop the enemy from walking around the fighter to get to the annoying little guy. Especially if the rogue is squishier than the fighter.
Remember that certain characters and builds should be better than others sometimes, just not necessarily all of the time.
there is a reason why snipers are dreadfully feared.
Trance-Zg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
I have no idea where you're getting this hogging the spot light stuff Meg. It has no founding in the OP or in the playstyle itself. The guy is basically removing himself from play whenever possible via hiding only to pop in once a round to hit something. That to you is hogging the spotlight? What the hell are you even talking about?
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
(From the OP)
So far so good, but the rogue insists he wants to hide and get that advantage bonus every single round.. He already has a large chance to make a sneak attack and of course if he starts the fight hidden I am okay with the advantage from being hidden but after giving away his position I am not okay with him going into hiding again.. Its like a neverending barrage of missile attacks without almost any risk of being attacked in return.. Meanwhile, the rest of the group (a fighter, druid, warlock and cleric) are taking the hits while they are actually missing some of their attacks. The rogue hits nearly every attack (because of the advantage) and does a crapload of damage (base damage for long bow + 2d6 every round + dex modifiers)..
vs.
It has no founding in the OP or in the playstyle itself. The guy is basically removing himself from play whenever possible via hiding only to pop in once a round to hit something.
It seems to OP does have issues with that playstyle.
El_Condoro wrote:
A quilver holds 20 arrows. Usually you pack up atleast 40 more in backpack if you're dedicated archer.
combat is usually 4-5 rounds long, so you're good for 12+ combats. without reusing/scavenging arrows.
Also, if mobs dont have their long range attackers, they don't go for the rogue while greatswor wielding fighter breathes in their face.
And rogue shines because he has meat shield infront of him. So, it's a team effort.
Yeah, I don't think intelligent monsters will have that much trouble with it. Disengage will allow them, at the expense of an attack, to move their full movement - through combat and without OAs - to where the sniper is believed to be hiding.
then melee allies of the rogue have a free round to bash away.
Rogues don't do "massive" damage. Maybe in the group of characters you are running they are doing the best or near best damage, but by no means do they do too much damage. Rogues are a lackluster class and robbing them of their few times to shine isn't something I think is right. At level 3 they may seem powerful, and maybe that is the actual peak of their power to be honest. When the other melee start getting their extra attacks, and the spell casters start getting their better spells you will see that the rogue is the one who actually needs help.
For the case at hand though, if the monsters do feel that the sniper rogue is harassing them the most, then they can do a variety of things to counter. Disengaging and moving up to the rogue, or readying to shoot the rogue when he shows himself are both good starters.
Trance-Zg wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
If the mobs are intelligent and realise that they are or back end of DPR they will make tactical retreat.
El_Condoro wrote:
The exact situation hasn't been described for us, but I think a lot of the problem is that there is a perceived lack of balance between the risks-damage taken of the melee front line (I assume the fighter and cleric) and the low risk-no damage taken rogue. I have been in situations where the rogue says after a battle, "I'm a rogue, so I can loot the battlefield now", which rubs salt in the wound - hopefully, that isn't happening, too.
For me, the problem is how and why the rogue is allowed to get away with this tactic for so long; not from a DM fiat point of view, but from a tactical point of view. If the rogue is doing so much damage every turn, why don't the monsters/NPCs focus a bit of their attention on finding and rooting him out? Readying actions, disengaging etc? Why does the rogue succeed on his opposed hide check every turn to be able to get advantage every turn?
As I say, the exact situation is not known, but something doesn't add up.
El_Condoro wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FreakFire74 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Okay,
I just jumped in a 5e Adventurer League. They had been playing for awhile already, running the Tiamat campaign.
I bought the PHB, and in about 30 minutes threw together a Ranger (Archer, Forrest terrain chosen). I chose the Wood Elf, not even intially realizing the Mask of the Wild ability. I was asked to level up to 3rd, since the existing group was 4th. This meant I could choose Hunter's Mark.
So now a couple sessions later, we're escorting a caravan, through forrest, when we get attacked by Giant Spiders. The DM plops down a mat, draws a path through trees. We've got a bunch of PCs and NPCs, carts, horses, trees, etc...
So if I "duck" behind carts, horses, etc, OR jump into the trees, where my Mask of the Wild should really come into play, is it unreasonable to assume I couldn't attempt to Move/Hide/Snipe every round?
...I could definitely see where my Hunter's Mark might not be applicable every turn. How realistic is it that I could Move/Hide/Snipe the same giant spider, but what if I Move/Hide/Snipe a different spider each turn? And these spiders are already engaged by multiple PCs?
Part of the "conundrum" I think some folks might be having with the 5e Hide/Advantage is that, as I understand it, I can re-roll a missed attack. ...ummm that's a HUGE advantage. If I got a +2 to hit, that might make it a little more palatable.
Everyone's thoughts appreciated.
AWAbooks wrote:
So, let's imagine the character is a rogue - in the situation described, how would the hide/snipe with advantage be handled?
jessequentin wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I read the first few posts and I agree he can hide every round, and start the next round with advantage on his attacks, BUT he does not get his auto crit from suprise. This only happens at the begining of the round when suprise is determined. Once melee is joined he looses suprise, and therefore can not get the extra damage from his critical when suprised.
Hope this helps
OoftaMeg wrote:
To me, the issue is not whether the rogue can hide (the ability seems fair enough, given something to hide behind) - it's whether he/she should get advantage on attacks when coming out of hiding. That is something that is normally a consequence of surprise, so suddenly seeing Kate Upton when you have been looking for her would be less of a paralysing surprise as a oh-finally moment (with a possible save vs charm pending). Seeing that rogue appear from where it was hidden would be similar, except the desire is more to harm. And there's no need to look for a full 6 seconds to know the general area from which that thief has been popping up - the normal alertness of a combatant should be enough to notice it after the first time a deadly volley was fired.
El_Condoro wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jessequentin wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Hmm... Thinking about "hide" vs. just moving in and out of cover... I've got myself confused...
Originally I was justifying the "hide" attack advantage based on the defender not seeing the attack until the last moment - thus limiting their reaction. But cover would do the same thing.
I could rule that popping in and out of cover could also give you advantage... Or I can rule that "hide" does something additional - like you are concealed but you can still see - making the time you're exposed before your attack less than if you were just moving out of cover.
Or, I can figure out another justification for the "hide" attack advantage. Like you get the advantage because the attack comes from an unexpected location. But then you couldn't just stay in place when you hide. You would have to "attack/hide/move(stealth)" every round to get the attack advantage.
EDIT: Maybe you don't have to move... I guess you can change up whether you pop out from the left side or right side of a pillar... Or if you pop out low or high from a wall... I don't know... Still thinking.
EDIT: NVM... That would still be the same as popping in and out of cover.
posineg wrote:
If a character (or NPC) stands behind a wall with complete cover, concealment, obscurement but without trying to hide (corner of a corridor, doorway, etc.) and moves out from behind it each turn, fires a ranged weapon, and then moves back behind the wall, do they get advantage on their attack roll? I would rule they don't but it seems some are arguing that they would.
El_Condoro wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
FreakFire74 wrote:
Nockers, I remember a time that seems long ago when you expressed your opinion and gave your reasons on why you thought something. I disagreed with a lot of what you said (obviously) but at least you tried to back up your arguments with your reasons.
I don't remember when I saw that last.
Do you have suggestions to the OP or are you just going to continue with attacking other people's opinion without even trying to justify your own?
Minor bit of objectivity: giving someone a nickname, even by making it out of their presented name, is rude unless done so with their permission.
Whether it's adding a few letters to a part, just using part, or using a completely different name, is entirely irrelevant.
Well, I have clarified once or twice that my name is the norwegian equivalent of "Oy Vey" or "Gosh Darn". You may say "Oy" or "Gosh" or "Oofta" but you wouldn't normally say "Vey" without the "Oy" first.
Anyway, sorry for contributing to the derailment of the thread. 
In an attempt to bring us back to relevance, there are a handful of topics with 5E that seem to cause a vast difference of opinions and this is one of them.
What do the rules say on page 60 of the basic PHB?
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.
The range of interpretations seems to go from:
- A strict reading of the rule section on hiding "You cannot hide if someone can see you" being interpreted as if you have line of sight to your target they have line of sight to you and you can never get advantage from stealth without special circumstances (e.g. being invisible). This effectively means that there is no reason to hide during combat except to minimize the risk of being targeted.
- Try to be reasonably liberal with DM discretion and allow it in at least some combat scenarios. Allow the person to step out from behind cover and fire if the target is distracted or being attacked. My general rule adds that you can't use the same cover, you have to keep moving and ducking out from different covered locations.
- Stealth works all the time as long as you beat the passive perception. You don't need full concealment to stay hidden, and as long as you start your turn hidden you attack with advantage. There are also circumstances (e.g. hiding under a table) where you can see the target but they can't see you.
I use #2 and there are several shades of gray, but use whatever makes sense for you and your group.
I have nothing else to add that will actually contribute to this thread. Do you?
Just to be clear: the insult is not that you don't want to play in the DM's game (I suspect he feels the same way) but that you questioned his intelligence "You don't have a clue". You have ignored that and focused on the less damning part of your statement. It's a common blame-shifting deflection technique.
paulstrait wrote:
Sands666 wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
For hiding in combat, right now I'm thinking:
If the target has his attention on you, you can't hide.
If the target is distracted or being attacked, but could possibly have you in view for part of your turn, you hide with disadvantage.
If you were obscured from the target's view for the entirety of your turn, you can hide normally.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Stealth in combat works the exact same way as out of combat. The rules don't change just because you're in an encounter. So there's not much point to me adding a section to my guide for it. If you're unseen you can roll stealth to hide just like you can outside of combat. If you have certain racial features or feats you can roll stealth outside of the situations specified within the general rules, again as normal. The myth that you can't roll stealth to hide in combat is exactly that, a myth. The rules in no way stop you from doing so and from what I've seen, it's mostly just people not thinking rolling to hide in combat makes sense or find it overpowered or whatever. More of that glorious "common sense"..
Noctaem wrote:
Seems like there's some agreement on this thread! Fantastic!
In order to hide, there must be something to hide behind. Period. If you're in a fight and in melee with an opponent, it won't make sense that you can automatically hide (unless perhaps you are a halfing with an adjacent ally that you can hide behind, but even then it requires you to move away from the opponent you are adjacent to).
In the situation I had at my table, the player thought he should be able to hide in every combat, regardless of environment. That didn't work. But then again, this player was notorious for cheesing any rules that he could to his advantage, and was also a notorious cheat. He no longer plays at our table, so I guess he got his wish to hide in every single combat after all.
Coredump00 wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Being unseen and being hidden are two different things in this game. You need to be unseen to be hidden. If you are hidden, you are also unseen, and in addition, no one knows where you are.
Jeff runs behind a large rock.
- He is unseen.
- Everyone knows where he is, whether or not they saw him run back there.
- Unseen attackers have advantage. No one knows when or how he will attack.
- Anyone who walks around the rock will see him
Jeff runs behind a large rock and Hides.
- He is unseen.
- No one knows where he is (if he beat their passive perception);
- Unseen attackers have advantage. No one knows when or how he will attack.
- His ability check prevents people from knowing where he is. Either through deception or proper timing; hence it being an ability of his (of which he is likely proficient).
- Enemies must take an action and roll a check to find him either through spotting him or listening for him and finding some trace of his wearabouts.
- Anyone who walks around the rock will see him even though he is hiding becuase he is no longer obscured.
I don't see why this is unclear.
Noctaem wrote:
EzechielDantan wrote:
Smashpunk wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Smashpunk wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
The section 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' PHB p.194-5 makes it clear that "If you are hidden - both seen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses".
It's possible that "you give away your location" is not the same as "lose your hidden condition" but it would at least mean enemies would have a good idea of where to look. In those "certain circumstances" on p. 177 it would be situational as to whether the two correlate, according to DM fiat. An elf in the woods would be a very different situation to an elf under a table in a dungeon, for example.
On a separate but related point, I disagree that if you can see a target it can see you. Actually, the "can" is correct - it is *possible* to see you but it doesn't always occur. One of the key uses of combat camouflage is to do the opposite - it allows you to see the enemy without them necessarily seeing you. I always imagine the elf ability Mask of the Wild to be a form of camouflage involving colours, angles, utilising available concealment etc. and why it's a situational ability (foliage, heavy rain etc.) If the conditions allow it, any character could manouevre themselves to be able to take a shot and keep their hidden condition but only if the situation, and the DM, allow it. According to the rules above, though, their *location* would be given away.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ah ok, so someone can take one rule that calls out specific circumstances as to when it comes into play and apply it to completely different circumstances in order to argue a point which breaks multiple racial features, a feat AND the stealth rules just off the top of my head. And not only that but it's a reasonable and logical way to apply the rules of the game? And all of this in the Rules Questions forum for said game. Well please tell me what it is that you're smoking good sir because it seems effective! :o)
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Well I guess you would have to play a session in one of my groups to verify if your inane claims are factual or not :o)
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
EzechielDantan wrote:
A few questions:
Smashpunk wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Psikerlord wrote: