Ranged Rogue - Too powerful?

[NewbieDMaster]

I am currently DMing a game that has just got up to 3rd level. I am quickly noticing that the Rogue in the party is particularly strong. Noticeably stronger than the Barbarian or the Fighter.
This is largely due to the Rogue's cunning action ability that allows the player to shoot an arrow, then hide as a bonus action, then move (at half speed), ensuring that they end their turn hidden, and the enemies have no way of knowing exactly where they are.
They can then attack the next turn (with advantage and sneak attack) and repeat this process.

The PC has 20 Dex and expertise in Stealth, giving them a +9 to stealth. Most enemies I have worked with seem to have something like 12 passive perception, ensuring that the PC successfully hides pretty much every time.

Note: The PC is a Wood Elf, and can hide easily in Natural Environments, he also plans to take the Skulker feat next level, making it even easier to disappear in virtually any environment.

Has anyone else noticed this issue? Am I missing something? Or is this something that will balance out better as levels go up?

[Rhaegar14]

Part of the issue is that the rules in 5e for stealth are really vague. Sure, he can hide, but it depends on the conditions. It's not like him hiding means they COMPLETELY forget where he is. If an enemy moves into a position where they have line of sight again, in my mind, that negates the hidden condition.

[Giant2005]

Even without hiding he would be noticably more effective than the others. Rogues progress pretty linearly whereas everyone else progress in leaps and bounds. Until the others start leaping (Which first occurs at level 5), the Rogue will seem more powerful.

[NewbieDMaster]

Thank you for the replies.


It's not like him hiding means they COMPLETELY forget where he is. If an enemy moves into a position where they have line of sight again, in my mind, that negates the hidden condition.
I agree Rheagar, if the character is no longer obscured from the enemy, then the enemy can see him, hiding or not. Issue being that the PC hides, then moves, making it impossible for the enemy to accurately determine their current position.


Rogues progress pretty linearly whereas everyone else progress in leaps and bounds. Until the others start leaping (Which first occurs at level 5), the Rogue will seem more powerful.
That's kinda what I thought from reading ahead... I did some equations on damage, and sneak attack is much stronger than anybody else can achieve up through level 5, then it gets weak by comparison, then it starts getting strong again around level 10. This is compared to the Barbarian anyways. I think the Fighter will be much stronger as they keep getting more attacks...

[Gwendol]

I wouldn't worry too much. Against quite a few enemies this will not work (blindsight, or other senses), and it is still a rogue (squishy, non-magical, etc). He's playing the class good and shouldn't be punished for it.

[Rhaegar14]

I agree Rheagar, if the character is no longer obscured from the enemy, then the enemy can see him, hiding or not. Issue being that the PC hides, then moves, making it impossible for the enemy to accurately determine their current position.


While this is a situational thing, the idea is this: even if he moves, depending on the terrain there's only so many places he can move where he still has cover. If he's hidden by a wall and an enemy comes around it, it doesn't matter if he's moved 10-15 feet down the wall. I guess my overall point would be to have your monsters use some common sense if this tactic is starting to get really problematic. There's only so many places they could have gone in most situations.

[Giant2005]

While this is a situational thing, the idea is this: even if he moves, depending on the terrain there's only so many places he can move where he still has cover. If he's hidden by a wall and an enemy comes around it, it doesn't matter if he's moved 10-15 feet down the wall. I guess my overall point would be to have your monsters use some common sense if this tactic is starting to get really problematic. There's only so many places they could have gone in most situations.

It isn't really practical for the monsters to be searching through all of the places the Rogue could be while the Rogues party is busy beating on them.

[Malifice]

I agree Rheagar, if the character is no longer obscured from the enemy, then the enemy can see him, hiding or not. Issue being that the PC hides, then moves, making it impossible for the enemy to accurately determine their current position.

There are three schools of thought on this depending on your interpretation of 'you cannot hide when you are being watched'.

The first school of thought is the 'gamist' school: Any time the Rogue breaks LOS by moving behind cover or concealment he can use the Hide action and become hidden, despite the enemy in question knowing where the Rogue is. This is the 'You cannot take the Hide action from a creature that is watching you' interpretation of 'cant hide when you are being watched'.

The second school of thought is the 'common sense' school: If the Rogue moves into cover he cannot hide if he was observed prior to his gaining total concealment or cover. The enemy still knows where the Rogue is with sufficient precision; he is not 'hidden' (although he may not be able to be seen). This is the 'You cannot hide from a creature that is watching you go into your hiding spot' interpretation of 'cant hide when you are being watched'.

The third school of thought is a mix of the above; the ask your DM interpretation: As not all enemies are watching all creatures at all times sometimes the Rogue can and sometimes he cant hide from an enemy; up to the DM to decide.

Based on your Rogue being a sniper armed with a Barrett 50 cal and one shot one killing everything with impunity, I suggest that most enemies are on the lookout for him pretty much all the time. Once he shoots, he reveals his position (hit or miss, unless he has the Sklker feat and misses). From there his ability to hide again should be severely limited.

I suggest being tougher on the Hide action (disclaimer, I use the common sense interpretation; any time the target is aware of your position with sufficient precision - either by watching you go into your hiding spot - not just watching you while you take the Hide action - you failing your stealth check and being heard, or whatever) no more Hide attempts until the situation changes enough to warrant one.

Even still, he should be getting Sneak Attack on most attacks anyways, simply by shooting into melee. Albeit not with advantage on every attack roll, and with the added problem of cover from his Fighter buddies.

[Giant2005]

Malifice, you should edit that post and erase your bias; leaving only the facts of the differing stances. As long as only the facts remain, people won't jump all over that bias and this thread won't get derailed.

[Rhaegar14]

It isn't really practical for the monsters to be searching through all of the places the Rogue could be while the Rogues party is busy beating on them.

But it is practical for one monster to go stand in a position where he has clear line of sight to all of them. It really depends on the terrain, which is sort of my point. In a lot of situations there are only so many places where a Rogue could have gone, and moving to a different position will give clear sight to all of them.

[PhantomRenegade]

As a rogue player i can say that this is definately something that balances itself out, at level 6 we have a Polearm master fighter in our party that regularly deals twice as much damage in one round as i do.

[hymer]

As a rogue player i can say that this is definately something that balances itself out, at level 6 we have a Polearm master fighter in our party that regularly deals twice as much damage in one round as i do.

I agree with this (and with a few other posters higher up). Trying to even everything out would be a game of whack-a-mole as you go up in levels. I'd suggest letting the rogues enjoy their sweet spots, and just level past them. Whacking the rogue now could result in worse imbalance later.

[Malifice]

Malifice, you should edit that post and erase your bias; leaving only the facts of the differing stances. As long as only the facts remain, people won't jump all over that bias and this thread won't get derailed.

There is no bias (other than one you read into it).

Like I said, it depends on how you interpret the 'you cant hide when you are being observed' bit. Either it means 'if you are observed going into your hiding spot you cant take the Hide action' or 'when observed you cant take the Hide action'.

There is no bias there. And if there was, I explained my bias by indicating which interpretation I prefer.

[Giant2005]

There is no bias (other than one you read into it).

Like I said, it depends on how you interpret the 'you cant hide when you are being observed' bit. Either it means 'if you are observed going into your hiding spot you cant take the Hide action' or 'when observed you cant take the Hide action'.

There is no bias there. And if there was, I explained my bias by indicating which interpretation I prefer.

By naming one "Common sense", you have indirectly named the other options "Contrary to Common Sense". By declaring that only one of those possibilities is common sense you are baiting those that believe otherwise to challenge your thoughts and start a debate which will undoubtedly derail this thread. The original poster does not deserve that.

[Malifice]

By naming one "Common sense", you have indirectly named the other options "Contrary to Common Sense". By declaring that only one of those possibilities is common sense you are baiting those that believe otherwise to challenge your thoughts and start a debate which will undoubtedly derail this thread. The original poster does not deserve that.

I find a Rogue climbing into a box, in full view of the enemy, then 'hiding' to be contrary to common sense. Barring some kind of teleportation magic, or a hidden door in the floor of the box ala a Las Vegas magician, the enemy knows exactly where the Rogue is. He watched him climb in there for gods sake!

You might not like that statement, or you may disagree with it somehow (maybe your common sense is different from mine) but that's a seperate issue. Thats the issue with the 'gamist' interpretation; it runs contrary to real world experience of 'hiding'.

Now you can feel free to rule that 'Stealth' is some kind of pseudo mind erasing magic that erases the creatures knowledge of where you are from a creatres mind, or simply prefer a game with a more black and white rules interpretation (cant be seen? Then you can attempt the Hide action).

As a DM I ask myself: Does this creature have a reasonable idea where you are? If not - you cannot attempt to Hide from them. You can still make the Stealth check, and it may be applicable to other creatures that walk past and didnt observe you going into hiding, but as long as the 'observer' knows where you are, you cannot attempt the Hide action.

But like I said - And let me be clear about this -there is no one 'right' way. Its up to each individual DM how they want to run it.

I was only suggesting the other options to the OP as he was encountering the exact problems I forsaw in the other thread (i.e. auto advantage every round and an inability to be attacked in return).

By contrast the Barbarian ability to gain auto advantage every round comes with a hefty drawback (melee only, all attacks directed back at you are also at advantage, strength only). Cunning action (if ruled according to the 'break LOS/ always Hide' interpretation leads to a far stronger source of constant advantage and incudes a substantial defence benefit in that it blocks attacks back in return.

Seeing as this DM was having problems with this exact mechanic, I suggested he tighten up on Stealth/ Hide prohibitions.

Which is a fair enough suggestion IMO.

[MrStabby]

It hasn't come up for me in my game as we dont have a rogue but if I were DMing this I would make a distinction between the two types of looking.

If the enemy walks past an already hidden rogue in an ambush that is hide vs passive perception.

If the enemy sees the rogue hide then they know exactly what they are looking for and exactly where they are looking for them. I would give opposed rolls with the spotter having advantage. This still means a LOT of monsters will fail, especially if the rogue focusses on stealth but it does even things out somewhat.

[Malifice]

If the enemy sees the rogue hide then they know exactly what they are looking for and exactly where they are looking for them. I would give opposed rolls with the spotter having advantage. This still means a LOT of monsters will fail, especially if the rogue focusses on stealth but it does even things out somewhat.

My issue with that is that the Search action is an action.

I wouldnt mind giving Paladins the abilty to use the Search action as a bonus action to sense evil hidden creatures.

Pali-dar is back :)

[NewbieDMaster]

Thank you everyone for your response so far. This discussion is proving helpful...

I guess a bit more information is necessary to show the exact issue I am having. My current game takes place in an area populated largely by grasslands. It is currently spring, and the grass is growing well, so tall grass is abundant while off the trail.
My party Rogue is a Wood Elf, so foliage is enough to hide him, thus, tall grass should suffice.

He is consistently ducking into the tall grass, and then moving through the grass. This leaves him in a position where nobody knows where he is, and there is no clear line of sight to him without standing right beside him.



Now you can feel free to rule that 'Stealth' is some kind of pseudo mind erasing magic that erases the creatures knowledge of where you are from a creatres mind, or simply prefer a game with a more black and white rules interpretation (cant be seen? Then you can attempt the Hide action).
I agree with this in most situations, however, as explained above, even though the monster knew exactly where the PC was when he ducked into the grass, he cannot see him as he moves stealthily away from his former position.

[Giant2005]

Thank you everyone for your response so far. This discussion is proving helpful...

I guess a bit more information is necessary to show the exact issue I am having. My current game takes place in an area populated largely by grasslands. It is currently spring, and the grass is growing well, so tall grass is abundant while off the trail.
My party Rogue is a Wood Elf, so foliage is enough to hide him, thus, tall grass should suffice.

He is consistently ducking into the tall grass, and then moving through the grass. This leaves him in a position where nobody knows where he is, and there is no clear line of sight to him without standing right beside him.

Time and experience will balance the Rogue out on its own and it is probably better to let the Rogue have his fun while it is available.
Having said that, there are things you can do if you don't want the Rogue to reign supreme regardless of how long it lasts. You can guide the players to an area where cover is not so abundant or you can tailor the enemies to deal with it - having an enemy made set the area alight would quickly destroy all of that potential cover or at least turn it into a hazard that may prove detrimental to the Rogue if his tactics don't adjust to the situation.

[AmbientRaven]

It's only level 3 things change as they go higher

[Gwendol]

Do that often enough and the enemy will start to devise ways to counter him: fire, aeral attacks, burrowers, etc.

Again, this is the rogue playing his part, don't punish him as things have a tendency to even out.

[Gwendol]

{scrubbed}

[Chronos]

The trouble here is that Hide needs houserules or it doesn't do anything at all. By what the rules actually say, you can only hide if nobody's able to see you, but if nobody is able to see you, then why do you need to hide? There are many different resolutions to this conflict, with arguments in favor of all of them, but different people can come to different conclusions. Worse, people can come to those different conclusions without even realizing that other conclusions are possible, which is the surest way to grind a gaming table to a halt as people argue about rules.


Quoth Malifice:

I find a Rogue climbing into a box, in full view of the enemy, then 'hiding' to be contrary to common sense. Barring some kind of teleportation magic, or a hidden door in the floor of the box ala a Las Vegas magician, the enemy knows exactly where the Rogue is. He watched him climb in there for gods sake!
Even this can be consistent with "common sense", with the right interpretation. Yeah, everyone's always trying to keep an eye on the sneaky rogue, but then, they're also trying to keep an eye on everything else in a chaotic combat. Maybe the enemy glances away for just a moment, because he knows the rogue can't go far, but when he glances back, he can't see the rogue. He knows the rogue can't have gone far, but that still doesn't tell him where she's gone. Maybe she went into the box, or maybe she went behind the box, or maybe she went behind that other box, or that pillar, or the barbarian that you're also trying to keep an eye on, or whatever.

[MrStabby]

I think you have a situation where the rogue is at their most powerful and even with a moderately tight ruling from the DM hide is very powerful. In long grass the rogue can hide and reappear in an unexpected place with ease. This plays to both the strengths of the wood elf and rogue. I would feel pretty relaxed about it.

As also noted the rogue is pretty high in its power relative to where it will be in a couple of levels time. I think that as long as most encounters in the long term are a bit trickier you should be ok. Either indoors/barren areas so the wood elf ability is less useful or where there is less cover so the rogue cannot move to an unknown location whilst hidden.

The other thing you can do is to manage encounter tactics to make things harder. A couple of ranged enemies positioned to give extra fields of view, maybe a large enemy that by looking down can see behind nearby cover and so on.

Let casters use spells creatively - if cover is such a huge advantage let them use wind to flatten the grass or a fireball to set it on fire (although the smoke would then give everyone cover!).

Also remember that long grass will block visibility for the rogue as well - they will have to get really close to be able to shoot (possibly within 5 ft if it is particularly dense).

To be honest, I don't think you will have a problem as long as the campaign as a whole will not continue to so strongly favour this one character, and if it does there are a lot of tweaks you can make to adjust things. I would strongly advise you to only use some of the adjustments occasionally though - your rogue is playing well and his enemies just by chance having the spells they need to deal with him or whatever is a bit unfair. If there is a plot reason it is fine, or if they are generally useful spells for fighting in this environment then this is also reasonable (or again if plot-wise they are specifically hunting this group) but everything in moderation (and other players should feel they are also reacting to their threats as well).

[Gritmonger]

If the group gets a reputation of attacking from the cover of grassland? That's the main crux of this right now - in a city, not so much, in a cave system not so much...

So, fire.

If they run into enemy again and the enemy is familiar with their tactics, have the enemy set the grasslands ablaze. It's hard to hide when you're on fire.

[Malifice]

{scrubbed}

No they were not 'beaten down' at all. The verdict was 'play it how it feels right for you', which is exactly what I've said in this thread. Stop being snarky. There are different options that possibly the OP hasnt thought of. I was posting a suggestion to the OP to consider interpreting the Hide action differently to see if that might help the situation.

As it turns out, due to the environment (ducking down in tall grass moving 35' and then hiding) I would probably also allow a Stealth check to Hide in those circumstances. Its pretty hard even should the Rogue be observed ducking down to keep tabs on him. It all seems fairly legit.

I would however give advantage to the 'observers' though due to the Rogue having to move though the long grass. The tops of the grass will move as the Rogue does, making it likely that his movement will be tracked, and his hiding position known.

Even with a Wisdom of 10, this makes the DC 15 which is a reasonable challenge for a 3rd level Rogue to pull off (even with expertise his Stealth score is no better than +7).

[Giant2005]

There are plenty of enemies with Blindsight you could throw at the party too. If you don't want to get too monstrous, you could have the party encounter "Batman" he could send his trained bats to flutter around the Rogue constantly which would always highlight his position.

[Malifice]

There are plenty of enemies with Blindsight you could throw at the party too. If you don't want to get too monstrous, you could have the party encounter "Batman" he could send his trained bats to flutter around the Rogue constantly which would always highlight his position.

The tops of the grass moving as the Rogue moves through them has a good chance of giving away his position and his momentum as he moves. In the Army that's the kind of thing we used to look for while on deployment.

I'd just add advantage (+5) to the passive perception of the creatures in the battle to account for it... if I used a similar tactic agains the PC's (and they specifically called out they were using this technique or a similar one like it) I would give them advantage on the check too.

[Angelmaker]

If you ever thought woodland elfs and grass is bad: try halfling who hides behind his allies. This is something very strange to even imagine.

Imho the 5e stealth rules a pretty bogus.

[holygroundj]

{scrubbed}

How is having a discussion about stealth interpretations baiting, specifically in a thread about how the OP is considering whether stealth for a wood elf is making the rogue too powerful? While the questions posed by Malifice may be well worn, it's completely within the context of this thread.

Anyone taking offense at the term common sense needs to look at the context of the post. One one side you have "game rules." On the other side you have something aproximating "real world rules," or common sense. However, common sense is different for different people, and can be taken as insulting, it seems, if ones idea of what is common differs from the writer's. In the context of a game, using the rules as they are written makes it so that someone can hide in combat and then be granted advantage when firing the first time. But, for some (most?) it doesn't make sense that a halfling can simply hide behind their friends and get the same advantage time

As far as rogues being OP, it depends on whether you can hide in combat at all. For the OP's specific example, I think that what the player is doing works, is legal, and is very effective, but not too powerful. The situation is unique and the player is utilizing the fluff of his race and class to a good extent.

[CNagy]

The PC has 20 Dex and expertise in Stealth, giving them a +9 to stealth. Most enemies I have worked with seem to have something like 12 passive perception, ensuring that the PC successfully hides pretty much every time.

Does the entire party have stats this good? If you generated ability scores via rolling, at low levels any sort of gulf between characters in primary stats is going to register as a big imbalance, especially in a bounded accuracy system. The fact that Rogues do well in early levels exacerbates the situation. Time and leveling will even it out, though.

[Giant2005]

Anyone taking offense at the term common sense needs to look at the context of the post. One one side you have "game rules." On the other side you have something aproximating "real world rules," or common sense. However, common sense is different for different people, and can be taken as insulting, it seems, if ones idea of what is common differs from the writer's. In the context of a game, using the rules as they are written makes it so that someone can hide in combat and then be granted advantage when firing the first time. But, for some (most?) it doesn't make sense that a halfling can simply hide behind their friends and get the same advantage time

Knowing where someone was before they went into hiding doesn't summon a satellite and monitors to the area to ensure that the observer still knows what the hider is doing. It is a fantasy game - they don't have satellite technology... although I guess an argument could be made for omniscience being within the bounds of a fantasy game but I don't see how knowing where someone was before they went into hiding should bestow the power of the gods onto the observer.
If there is any sense at all in that concept, I'm pretty sure it is far from common.

[Mr.Moron]

I'll avoid the broader debate of hide rules and balance, I think what's most important in this case is your table:


Is the strength of the Rogue's ability gotten to the point where any other players feel consistently overshadowed and/or frustrated? (If you don't know, ask them)
Is the strength of the Rogue's ability gotten to the point where you find it difficult to create compelling content, or find it frustrating to run a game you enjoy?


If the answer to both these questions is "No", leave it be.

If the answer to either of these questions is "Yes", then you need to tamp it down. Approach the rogue player and tell him the power level needs to be drawn back a little bit, and you want to discuss ways to do that won't be totally unfun. Make it gently clear that the matter of if there needs to be a nerf is not up for negotiation but that you want to make the how of it as comfortable as possible for him.

[ChubbyRain]

Everyone who likes theater of the mind should allow for hiding in combat even if one creature cab observe you. You may not be hidden to that specific create but you are hidden from others. Also, if you break LoS then they can't see you anymore and have no clue how or when you will pop up to do your attack.

3 ogres are coming after the rogue. They see him dive behind a barrel. Some things that could happen...

Ogres think the rogue is being a pansy and will just hide behind the barrel until they kill him, they are surprised when th rogue leaps up and takes a shot (advantage) at one of them.

Ogres thinks the rogue will keep moving and are surprised when the rogue doubles back, does a slow motion dive the way the rogue cane and fires some arrows (advantage).

Ogres thinks the rogue may be tricky and double back, however the rogue continues on his oath but now is sliding along the floor and shoots/throws at one of the ogre.

The ogres are surprised and the rogue has advantage in each scenario because the ogres don't know the rogues next action. They can't see how the rogue will be acting even when they know where he is.

Breaking LoS is a lot like being invisible. Sure you may KNOW where that invisible target is (say they sneezed) but you still have disadvantage on your attack and they have advantage on their attack.

Theater of the mind works best when you actually use theater with it. Don't just think of the gamist idea of "the rogue goes behind the barrel, they saw him do it, thus he can't hide" because that is utter crap. The rules where written with that scenario to be more like this "the rogue dives behind a barrel doing a roll, the ogres see him, however the rogue doubles back (somehow twisting his momentum!) and catches the ogres off guard with his range attack".

[Naanomi]

The example usually given (one hiding spot) usually lends itself to the rogues position being 'known' by people paying attention, but if the rogue can move and still be hidden... No one knows where she will 'pop out' (from the wide field of grass, from the bustling crowd, from one behind one of a dozen trees) then I see no reason not to let them surprise folks.

Orc: where'd that tricksy halfling go... There are so many tunnels and caves down here. I'd go find him if there weren't three or so other people here trying to kill me.
Halfling: *silently approaches from a side tunnel he doubled back on*
Orc: Arg my liver!

[DireSickFish]

From the situation you have given I would allow him to keep up his hit and run hiding tactics. If you were in a crowded room and he tried to pull it by hiding behind the one table then I wouldn't let it go. He's in his element and the martial classes really get a power bump at lvl5.

If you want to design an interesting encounter that negates his advantage then go for it. It can be fun to subvert tactics liek this. I wouldn't beat him down every time he tries to hide though. Rogues have very high serviceability this edition because they are the best at not being anywhere near there enemy when its there turn.

[NewbieDMaster]

If you ever thought woodland elfs and grass is bad: try halfling who hides behind his allies. This is something very strange to even imagine.

Imho the 5e stealth rules a pretty bogus.

Yeah, I am a PC in another game, and my wife is playing a Halfling Rogue Sniper. This game is also 3rd level, and she is proving very strong, even with fairly moderate stats. It seems that it is just difficult for enemies to see through anyone hiding, due to low perception....

[Malifice]

Does the entire party have stats this good?

Exactly. He's third level for Odins sake. Meaning he rolled an 18 for Dex at the start. Do-able, but (in a system with bounded accuracy) 'peak of mortal agility bordering on superhuman'.

(Although technically 1/180 elven and halfling adventurers will be this agile, but theyre the exception to the general rule).

I posted in the other thread about a comparison between a SB Rogue and a BM Fighter, and the Fighter came out well on top.

Still confused about how the Rogue is smashing it so blatantly.


If you ever thought woodland elfs and grass is bad: try halfling who hides behind his allies. This is something very strange to even imagine.

Imho the 5e stealth rules a pretty bogus.

Nah brah, thats just your common sense telling you you might be interpreting a rule a bit too narrowly and out of context.

But if thats how you want to play it, be my guest.

[Gwendol]

That's partly due to the typical monsters being very bad at skills contests. Set them up against enemy adventurers (having skills) will make pulling these things off harder.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, I am a PC in another game, and my wife is playing a Halfling Rogue Sniper. This game is also 3rd level, and she is proving very strong, even with fairly moderate stats. It seems that it is just difficult for enemies to see through anyone hiding, due to low perception....


Yeah, if you have a class based around stealth an you only ever throw enemies at them with no wisdom and no proficiency in perception it is probably not balancing things that well.

Personally I am a big fan of adding class levels to enemies to broaden their capabilities - this may help here.

[NewbieDMaster]

Does the entire party have stats this good? If you generated ability scores via rolling, at low levels any sort of gulf between characters in primary stats is going to register as a big imbalance, especially in a bounded accuracy system. The fact that Rogues do well in early levels exacerbates the situation. Time and leveling will even it out, though.

I agree that the DEX is very high for a PC at only 3rd level. The rest of his stats are decent, but not so ridiculous. Fortunately for him, the Rogue doesn't seem to need much else.
As for the rest of the party, it is a bit of a mixed bag; we use rolled stats, and my group does not wish to stray from that idea. So some of them are really good, and others are subpar. There are a few 18s around the other PCs, but he has the only 20.

[holygroundj]

Knowing where someone was before they went into hiding doesn't summon a satellite and monitors to the area to ensure that the observer still knows what the hider is doing. It is a fantasy game - they don't have satellite technology... although I guess an argument could be made for omniscience being within the bounds of a fantasy game but I don't see how knowing where someone was before they went into hiding should bestow the power of the gods onto the observer.
If there is any sense at all in that concept, I'm pretty sure it is far from common.

Here are some questions that I ask in regards to re-hiding in combat:

What exactly, is causing the rogue to gain advantage on his shot after hiding? What does the advantage represent?

My response to hiding in combat relies on specific interpretations of these questions. If the advantage represents the NPC not knowing where the following shot is going to come from, then this is where common sense is being applied. Orc A just watched the halfing shoot at him, then duck behind Hagrid the Goliath. Orc A might not be a smart guy, but he's pretty sure the halfing didn't just disappear and is probably wary that another shot is going to be coming from somewhere in that vacinity. So why does the rogue get advantage on the next shot?

Now, for OP's example, Orc B gets shot, then Woodly fades into the grass. it might move, it might not, but Orc B has no idea where the next shot is coming from, and is scared. Advantage here passes the "common sense" test.

In both examples, the gaming test says the rogue has advantage. Do you see the difference, and why some people want to apply a common sense to these rules?

I mean, I haven't even asked about what the rules say about moving out of cover then shooting on the same turn with regards to perception/awareness.

Suffice it to say that the power level of a hiding rogue is strictly in the realm of DM fiat, in my opinion. But that's just my common sense, and I could be wrong.

[Malifice]

I agree that the DEX is very high for a PC at only 3rd level. The rest of his stats are decent, but not so ridiculous. Fortunately for him, the Rogue doesn't seem to need much else.
As for the rest of the party, it is a bit of a mixed bag; we use rolled stats, and my group does not wish to stray from that idea. So some of them are really good, and others are subpar. There are a few 18s around the other PCs, but he has the only 20.

Give the monsters advantage on the check to notice the Rogue (they can notice the swirling grass as he moves, similar to an invisible person walking through water). Its logical and brings the Rogue down a notch.

Also, try and stage some encounters in shorter grass, or in slightly different terrain. Long distance fights (and fights in close quarters) fights with lots of terrain and fights with none favor different characters.

Also: Higher ground.

[HoarsHalberd]

Give the monsters advantage on the check to notice the Rogue (they can notice the swirling grass as he moves, similar to an invisible person walking through water). Its logical and brings the Rogue down a notch.

Also, try and stage some encounters in shorter grass, or in slightly different terrain. Long distance fights (and fights in close quarters) fights with lots of terrain and fights with none favor different characters.

Also: Higher ground.

However don't use these tactics exclusively. Give the rogue a chance to use their ability some of the time. A rogue without sneak attack has the weakest DPR of any class post level 5. (And also remember they get sneak attacks even if they don't have advantage as long as the target has a foe within 5ft)

[Kajorma]

If the group gets a reputation of attacking from the cover of grassland? That's the main crux of this right now - in a city, not so much, in a cave system not so much...

So, fire.

If they run into enemy again and the enemy is familiar with their tactics, have the enemy set the grasslands ablaze. It's hard to hide when you're on fire.

That was my thought too.

Not that setting the grasslands on fire would be a wise tactical decision. I see this as being done by something dumb and beefy.
Like an Ogre getting angry and screaming about the sneaky elf-man, then out of frustration making a very rash decision.

This doesn't necessarily prevent the rogue from hiding, but you can add a mechanic to the fight of the fire taking up areas of terrain, and needing to be avoided. The ogre and the party alike would have to deal with it, and the fire wouldn't end when the combat was over either.

Wildfires are *very* dangerous, and this could add an element of excitement, and flavor to your session.

[Giant2005]

What exactly, is causing the rogue to gain advantage on his shot after hiding? What does the advantage represent?

There isn't any real way to come up with any form of universal explanation for this - the infinite variables pose infinite possibilities. Basically the rules tell us that the character has advantage and it is our job to come up with a logical explanation within the confines of the scenario. Just explain it in whatever way seems the most fun without damaging your suspension of disbelief.

[HoarsHalberd]

There isn't any real way to come up with any form of universal explanation for this - the infinite variables pose infinite possibilities. Basically the rules tell us that the character has advantage and it is our job to come up with a logical explanation within the confines of the scenario. Just explain it in whatever way seems the most fun without damaging your suspension of disbelief.

Essentially I think it's meant to show the advantage of attacking a target who doesn't know where you are and hence cannot pre-emptively defend from the attack by anticipating attacks or creating space or even just readying oneself for the blow before it lands. (As anyone who has ever taken a sucker punch will tell you, the advantage on this is huge.)

[PhantomRenegade]

I very much agree with Chubbyrain's earlier post, its not that hiding makes the enemies suddenly not know where the Rogue was before he hid himself, its that they know he's there but can't see what he's doing, they don't know when the attack is coming or what kind of attack is being readied, thus the Rogue gets advantage.

Keep also in mind that in addition to the Rogue the enemies have to keep the whole party in mind, sure the orc knows the Rogue is hidden behind the barrel of fish guts, but right now he's a bit busy dealing with the magic missiles hitting him in the face and the Goliath barbarian barreling down on him to really focus on that one dude that decided to hide.



Changing tracks for a moment, i'd first like to state that i know the DM is always right and i dont say this as some sort of taunt, but do i think its only fair to say that if you do decide nerf him now that he's up, you should probably buff him later when he starts to lag behind the other classes because that will very much happen.

[Dralnu]

Let's compare Barb and Rogue quickly, assuming STR/DEX is a +4.

At level 3:

Raging Barbarian swings: 1d12 + 2 (Rage) + 4 (STR), attacks Recklessly (advantage) = 12.5 damage
Rogue SA: 1d8 + 2d6 (SA) + 4 (DEX), attacks from hiding (advantage) = 15.5 damage

Rogue deals more damage if he can hide each turn, but only 3 more on average.

Rogue is less likely to get hit due to constantly hiding. But Barbarian has 33% more HP (d8 vs d12) and Damage Reduction (half dmg) to soak way more hits.


Now at level 5:

Raging Barbarian swings: 2d12 +4 (Rage) + 8 (STR), attacks Recklessly (advantage) = 25 damage
Rogue SA: 1d8 + 3d6 (SA) + 4 (DEX), attacks from hiding (advantage) = 19 damage

Now the Barbarian can also take Great Weapon Mastery and the Rogue can also take Sharpshooter to add +10 damage to their attacks with advantage, because why not? But the Barbarian wins even more here, because whenever he crits (double crit chance, advantage) or drops a creature (look at the damage.. he'll drop creatures) he can swing again as a bonus action, dealing another 12.5 damage over the Rogue.

And by the way, are you remembering the rules for cover? Because if the Rogue is shooting into combat and his target is behind an ally or enemy or whatever, that target is getting +2 AC against the attack, lowering the Rogue's damage further. This is negated by the Sharpshooter feat. I always forget this personally and it makes a difference.


So no, the Rogue isn't too powerful. He's going to be outclassed in damage the moment you hit level 5, or earlier if the Barbarian picks up Great Weapon Mastery next level. His strengths will be found elsewhere, in sneaking/scouting, and that's fine. Let him have nice things too.



EDIT:

Also when declaring when someone should be able to hide, think about combat for a second. You're an orc enjoying a delicious mug of grog with your buddies at a campfire. Suddenly a band of murder hobos attack you. You snatch up your weapon just as a barbarian runs up to you swinging. You see a halfling fire an arrow into your side before ducking behind a wizard in the distance.

Are you watching to see where the halfling pops out next? Maybe -- but there's a barbarian in your face that your actively trying to dodge, and the wizard is shooting goddamn lightning out of his hands. You probably lost track of that halfling at some point. Same thing with the wood elf disappearing behind a tree.

Really, it's not a big deal. The rogue isn't doing absurd damage even if you're super lenient about hiding, nor does the rogue have ideal stats for taking a beating if he's left out in the open.

EDIT 2:

Also, the Rogue is making a check to hide in the first place, right? So there's always the chance that he fails. That should be enough.

[coredump]

Hey NewbieDM,

A large part of this is the rogue is in (almost) his perfect environment. Its like having a Heavy Armor Master fighter facing 25 kobolds in a 5' wide corridor.

A few things to consider however....

Grasslands may *not* be the greatest place to hide, since it should be fairly easy to just watch the grass move as the rogue moves past. You could reasonably adjudicate the situation as impossible to move through without being detected. Or rule that the stealth move is at disadvantage and/or that the perception check is at advantage.

There is also the issue of breaking hidden. If the Rogue needs to 'pop up' from hiding while the target is keeping an eye out for him.... then he is leaving 'hidden' in order to fire. This deals with the rogue doing the same thing over and over. It means she can still Hide, but will not get advantage upon shooting.

Also, one of the things you can spend your action on is to Search....but that isn't what is being done here. The Bad Guy looking for the Rogue target is simply part of "select a target", and would get a perception (or maybe investigation) check.
Passive checks are for when you are actively doing the same skill over and over, the bad guy is just doing it once this round....


Edit: Oh, the above are simply options. You may want to use all of them, or only some of them. Or decide depending on the enemy.

[Mara]

Am I missing something? Being hidden does not mean enemies do not know where you were before you successfully hide. If you happen to still be in that same spot, enemies effectively know where you are even though you are hidden.

Various tactics can then ensue.

[Chronos]

Only if the enemies know that you happen to be in that same spot. If you could have moved but didn't, how do they know you didn't?

[Vogonjeltz]

Part of the issue is that the rules in 5e for stealth are really vague. Sure, he can hide, but it depends on the conditions. It's not like him hiding means they COMPLETELY forget where he is. If an enemy moves into a position where they have line of sight again, in my mind, that negates the hidden condition.

It just means they don't know where he is. Even if they guess right that, after the Rogue hid, they moved to a particular location, they'd still have to beat the stealth check with a perception check to actually spot them (PHB 177). And that's assuming it's possible to see the Rogue, the NPC might not even be able to see. (PHB 177).


The trouble here is that Hide needs houserules or it doesn't do anything at all. By what the rules actually say, you can only hide if nobody's able to see you, but if nobody is able to see you, then why do you need to hide?

Because being hidden is different than being unlooked at. Walking behind a tree takes a character out of view, but doesn't hide them. If an enemy walks around the tree, they would see the character. However, if the character walks behind the tree and hides, then when an enemy walks around the tree, they don't automatically see them, instead it becomes a question of: How perceptive is the enemy? If they're actively looking they get to roll a Perception check, if they're just passively looking, they don't.


If they run into enemy again and the enemy is familiar with their tactics, have the enemy set the grasslands ablaze. It's hard to hide when you're on fire.

I would tend to question the wisdom of anyone who deliberately set a grasslands on fire, that sounds outright suicidal. That being said, this is a decent reason for the Rogue in question to ensure there are no survivors to their combats.


The tops of the grass moving as the Rogue moves through them has a good chance of giving away his position and his momentum as he moves. In the Army that's the kind of thing we used to look for while on deployment.

This is pretty much why moving from one hidden location to another requires the stealth check.


My response to hiding in combat relies on specific interpretations of these questions. If the advantage represents the NPC not knowing where the following shot is going to come from, then this is where common sense is being applied. Orc A just watched the halfing shoot at him, then duck behind Hagrid the Goliath. Orc A might not be a smart guy, but he's pretty sure the halfing didn't just disappear and is probably wary that another shot is going to be coming from somewhere in that vacinity. So why does the rogue get advantage on the next shot?

Because the Orc only has the last known location of the Halfling, they don't actually have any idea where the Halfling really is at that point, the Orc can't see them. Common sense dictates that when you don't know where someone is, you can be surprised. That Halflings can hide using other people to block sightlines is reflective of how tricky they are. Consider the scene in Lord of the Rings when Pippin and Merry escape the Uruk-hai, they are constantly hiding from enemies by ducking around others. Really, it's just common sense.

[TheOldCrow]

How much of this problem is from hiding rules, and how much of this is from ranged attacks? I don't think the hide+ melee sneak attack is as big an issue, because it relies on getting close. Hide + ranged attack allows sneak attacking even targets that are so far away they would appear to be the size of a highly agitated speck. Yeah, I could shoot the ground hog that is currently in my backyard 120 feet away, but after the first shot its not going to be sitting there like a lump any more even if it can't figure out the direction of the attack. Maybe there should be more of a disadvantage to using ranged over melee. I'm curious, if this was a melee rogue, would the hide rules still be as big of a problem?

[Chronos]

Quoth Vogonjeltz:

Because being hidden is different than being unlooked at. Walking behind a tree takes a character out of view, but doesn't hide them. If an enemy walks around the tree, they would see the character. However, if the character walks behind the tree and hides, then when an enemy walks around the tree, they don't automatically see them, instead it becomes a question of: How perceptive is the enemy? If they're actively looking they get to roll a Perception check, if they're just passively looking, they don't.
Which is one perfectly reasonable way to houserule it, but it isn't the only way, and it's not RAW. By RAW, once the enemy walks around the tree, the rogue can't be hiding any more. Which is stupid, which is why it requires houserules.

[eastmabl]

Really, it's about balancing these two things:

1. A rogue is a mundane character, and by overly applying realism, you punish him in favor of wizards who can cast invisibility et al. Forbidding him to stretch the power of his character is potentially overly punitive.

2. Realism, as bound by appropriate application of Disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Give with the first, constrict with the second.

[Malifice]

I very much agree with Chubbyrain's earlier post, its not that hiding makes the enemies suddenly not know where the Rogue was before he hid himself, its that they know he's there but can't see what he's doing, they don't know when the attack is coming or what kind of attack is being readied, thus the Rogue gets advantage.

I disagree, and it can clearly be interpreted differently. Again - caveat - it's up to each DM to make his own interpretation.

To me, something is no longer hidden when (or if) I know where it is. Being hidden is the relationship between the subjective knowledge of the observer relative to the objective reality of thing itself that is purported to be hidden from that person.

If I hide an coin at the bottom of a match-box, it is not hidden from me, even if I close the match-box and can no longer see the object. If some-one else then hides the match-box while I am not watching, then the coin (and the math-box) again becomes hidden from me.

Hiding means something more than 'not being seen'. Invisible creatures are not hidden, and neither are creatures with total concealment or cover, unless they also take the Hide action. 'Hiding' requires something more than just being unseen otherwise total cover and total obscurement and invisibility would simply render you automatically hidden. They dont; they just create one of the pre-conditions for the use of the Hide action.

In my mind this reflects the logical situation that if I cant see a creature, but otherwise know where it is (hearing it, having someone tell me where it is, seeing it go where I can no longer see it, or whatever), then it isn't hidden from me. In other words, if my subjective knowledge of where the creature 'is' matches the objective reality of where the creature 'is' then it is not hidden (from me).

Again; caveat applies. Its up to each DM to make the call and interpret this themselves.


Being hidden does not mean enemies do not know where you were before you successfully hide. If you happen to still be in that same spot, enemies know where you are even though you are hidden.

Does not compute. If I know where something is, its not hidden from me. It could be hidden from some-one else though.


By RAW, once the enemy walks around the tree, the rogue can't be hiding any more. Which is stupid, which is why it requires houserules.

How is that stupid? I hide something in a box. Someone opens the box and sees the thing I hid. Rogue hides in box. Creature opens box and sees rogue in the box. Makes total sense!

I think the problem with this is the cyclic nature of turns in combat (you move, I move, you move) when in reality the movement (and actions) are done simultaneously. In other words, in a non turn based/ narrative encounter, the Rogue hiding behind the tree would have the opportunity to declare he is moving around the other side of the tree (and thus staying hidden) as the creature was moving around behind it. In turn based encounters (such as combat), this level of interplay is impossible.

In narrative (non initiative/ turn based) play, this wouldn't be an issue; the Rogue simply states that as the creature walks around the back of the tree, he slinks around to the other side (or stealthily climbs it out of sight or whatever). If he just stood there like a grinning fool, with his back pressed against the tree, he would be as obvious as if he tried to do the same thing around a dungeon corner as someone rounded it.

That's my view about what 'hidden' and 'hiding' means anyways. People can feel free to run it differently.

[RulesJD]

If he's in tall grass that means the Rogue has to be particularly close to see the target. Have 1-2 archers Ready actions to shoot when the Rogue fires. Bam, nail him with a fire arrow or one with the Light spell cast on it.

Alternatively, give your enemies some nets out of the PHB. Ready action for when the Rogue moves into to attack. Net = restrained = cunning action becomes useless.

There's a dozen ways to creatively counter stealthing Rogues without messing with their mechanic or feel that they're being nerfed just because the DM said so. The ultimate one is, of course, to stat up some enemies or just use the Assassin in the same manner as the Rogue. Use their own techniques against them.

[Malifice]

If he's in tall grass that means the Rogue has to be particularly close to see the target. Have 1-2 archers Ready actions to shoot when the Rogue fires. Bam, nail him with a fire arrow or one with the Light spell cast on it.

Laughably, some people would argue that by RAW they cant.

He makes his attack from hiding; he only reveals his position after resolving the attack (hit or miss). So they don't notice him until after the attack is resolved. They don't notice the attack. They cant ready for something they cant see happen.

You need to notice the trigger (Rogue firing) so you can react to it.

[Giant2005]

I think the problem with this is the cyclic nature of turns in combat (you move, I move, you move) when in reality the movement (and actions) are done simultaneously. In other words, in a non turn based/ narrative encounter, the Rogue hiding behind the tree would have the opportunity to declare he is moving around the other side of the tree (and thus staying hidden) as the creature was moving around behind it. In turn based encounters (such as combat), this level of interplay is impossible.

I think this is a very astute observation and the fundamental reason as to why people don't agree on how Stealth works.

One DMing style has the mechanics define the narrative and if a successful hide check was made prior to someone investigating the area behind the tree, they would absolutely declare that the reason for the hidden person to not have been seen was because he had climbed the tree or moved to the other side of the tree or whatever. Essentially they have the game mechanics tell them what happened (character went behind a tree and hid, other character moved behind the tree where he thought the hider was but cannot see him) but then use the narrative to explain why those particular game mechanics make sense in that situation.

The other DMing style has the narrative define the mechanics and if that person made a successful hide check behind the tree and then another person come around that tree and stare at the hider, that hider is no longer hidden regardless of what the mechanics say. They use the narrative to explain the mechanics..

[Gwendol]

If he's in tall grass that means the Rogue has to be particularly close to see the target. Have 1-2 archers Ready actions to shoot when the Rogue fires. Bam, nail him with a fire arrow or one with the Light spell cast on it.

Alternatively, give your enemies some nets out of the PHB. Ready action for when the Rogue moves into to attack. Net = restrained = cunning action becomes useless.

There's a dozen ways to creatively counter stealthing Rogues without messing with their mechanic or feel that they're being nerfed just because the DM said so. The ultimate one is, of course, to stat up some enemies or just use the Assassin in the same manner as the Rogue. Use their own techniques against them.

Are you sure about that? Light obscuration only gives disadvantage on perception checks. I see nothing about limiting the distance.

[RulesJD]

Laughably, some people would argue that by RAW they cant.

He makes his attack from hiding; he only reveals his position after resolving the attack (hit or miss). So they don't notice him until after the attack is resolved. They don't notice the attack. They cant ready for something they cant see happen.

You need to notice the trigger (Rogue firing) so you can react to it.

False, at least for now. Regardless of whether you hit, making an attack from hiding reveals your position. With 20 Dex, obviously the next ASI will be for Skulker so that will be negated.

However, that doesn't matter. If the Rogue misses, oh well. But if the Rogue hits, their position will still be revealed = Readied actions trigger. (Trigger, Rogue reveals themselves). It doesn't matter if the Rogue then tries to Cunning Action stealth away, they still revealed themselves per RAW.

Oh, also, start throwing way more mages and clerics against them. Readied Action -> Hold Person. Presuming you at least required some kind of dump stat for letting a character get away with 20 in a stat, just find the weakness and exploit it. Readied Action -> Phantasmal Force if Int is the dump stat, etc.

Other ways:
Fog Cloud/Sleet Storm combo with enemies that ignore it. Remember, the Rogue has to see you as well. What is their other expertise in? If it's Acrobatics, then attack the Rogue's Perception and vice versa. Go for monsters with high Athletics to Ready Action -> grapple.


Are you sure about that? Light obscuration only gives disadvantage on perception checks. I see nothing about limiting the distance.

Cover, not obscuration. By RAW (and common sense), total DM discretion on what provides total cover. Or just start using 1/2 of 3/4 cover rules from the tall grass. Enough tall grass in a row = arrow looses too much energy to penetrate.

[Malifice]

False, at least for now. Regardless of whether you hit, making an attack from hiding reveals your position. With 20 Dex, obviously the next ASI will be for Skulker so that will be negated.

Nope. Its not when you make the attack; its when it hits or misses. From the PHB:

Unseen Attackers and Targets

When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

You get advantage on the attack as you are 'hidden' (both unseen and unheard) when you fire your arrow. Its only when the arrow hits (or misses) your enemy that your position is noticed (the arrow sticking out of the bad guy, or whizzing past his head is a big clue).

You are hidden from everyone with a lower passive perception than your Stealth check.

Once the arrow hits (or misses) you give away your location. Not before (or you wouldnt get advantage on the attack roll).

Laughably, this lets the dude shooting (by strict RAW) attempt to Hide again before the arrows fly back at him in return (his Hide action occurring before any triggering reaction shots in return). Assuming he makes the check, his is now 'hidden' (both unseen and unheard) and cant be attacked at all.

[RulesJD]

Nope. Its not when you make the attack; its when it hits or misses. From the PHB:

Unseen Attackers and Targets

When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

You get advantage on the attack as you are 'hidden' (both unseen and unheard) when you fire your arrow. Its only when the arrow hits (or misses) your enemy that your position is noticed (the arrow sticking out of the bad guy, or whizzing past his head is a big clue).

You are hidden from everyone with a lower passive perception than your Stealth check.

Once the arrow hits (or misses) you give away your location. Not before (or you wouldnt get advantage on the attack roll).

Laughably, this lets the dude shooting (by strict RAW) attempt to Hide again before the arrows fly back at him in return (his Hide action occurring before any triggering reaction shots in return). Assuming he makes the check, his is now 'hidden' (both unseen and unheard) and cant be attacked at all.

That's where I was pointing out that you're getting RAW wrong. Readied actions = Reactions = trigger at the event. The event is the Rogue revealing themselves. When the attack hits or misses (after the d20 attack roll), the Rogue is then revealed and the Reactions trigger. Period, end of story. The Rogue can try to hide AFTER the Readied actions of course.

[Malifice]

That's where I was pointing out that you're getting RAW wrong. Readied actions = Reactions = trigger at the event. The event is the Rogue revealing themselves. When the attack hits or misses (after the d20 attack roll), the Rogue is then revealed and the Reactions trigger. Period, end of story. The Rogue can try to hide AFTER the Readied actions of course.

How can they trigger at the event when the dude readying the action cant see the event.

I suppose the wording could be different - when the dude reveals himself instead of when he attacks.

[Gwendol]

Cover, not obscuration. By RAW (and common sense), total DM discretion on what provides total cover. Or just start using 1/2 of 3/4 cover rules from the tall grass. Enough tall grass in a row = arrow looses too much energy to penetrate.

I'm not sure grass is supposed to provide cover, it's a bit too malleable for that don't you think?

EDIT: Unless you argue the grass is dense enough to provide heavy obscuration in which case the wood elf rogue is effectively blind while hiding inside it, and indeed, it can be argued arrows may loose hitting power on the way.

[Gwendol]

How can they trigger at the event when the dude readying the action cant see the event.

I suppose the wording could be different - when the dude reveals himself instead of when he attacks.

I think the reading is that there is no difference in time between the attack roll and the resolution of the attack. This means that the reaction triggers immediately after the attack roll, before the rogue has time to take his bonus action hide.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that his sneaking really probably isn't a problem, because the rogue sneaking or not sneaking isn't a rate limiting factor on the pcs taking damage, and fundamentally this supports everyone filling in their archetypes. A wood elf rogue can already kite all melee monsters, and most ranged threats whose threat range isn't substantially better than theirs, via bonus dashing for 70ft to attack while spending all the time not on her turn 35 feet out of her own short range. Monsters wouldn't be attacking the rogue anyway, most of the time, so the monsters not being able to target her is largely irrelevant - it's only the weakest link that really matters in terms of taking damage. What's more, the rogue sneaking and getting off sneak attacks via the thing the rule is actually named after supports the idea of the rogue, while monster attention being directed to the fighter supports the idea of the fighter.

I think it's all good.

[Vogonjeltz]

Which is one perfectly reasonable way to houserule it, but it isn't the only way, and it's not RAW. By RAW, once the enemy walks around the tree, the rogue can't be hiding any more. Which is stupid, which is why it requires houserules.

By raw they are hidden until such time as the hide check is beaten by a perception check. You are free to house rule otherwise.

[MrStabby]

Purely as a narrative note, if enemies are preparing readied actions to take down a rogue I would suggest that the rogues attack is certainly not unexpected so if you allow this you are pushing more towards the enemies explicitly not being seen.

I am usually a rules as written person but I am swayed considerably in this discussion that adopting a "rules as not stupid" stance is needed. As an extreme example I wouldn't allow someone to hide by throwing a blanket over themselves - yes they may take an action to do it and yes they are out of sight but it is obviously an exploit. Hiding in obscuring grass on the other hand seems pretty legitimate - the enemies know you are somewhere but not where. Hiding behind a tree on the otherhand is somewhere in the middle - it is a bit of an exploit of the rules but at least the DM chose to put the cover there.

As a rule of thumb for what seems reasonable to me, if you move 15 ft or more from where you hid without leaving cover then your new location is sufficiently unknown. Hedges, walls, shrubbery, smokescreens, fields of tall grass all then are able to let you hide again. Most pillars and trees will not.

[PhantomRenegade]

@Malifice: So by your extremely narrow view of hidden and hiding, actually hiding yourself in battle is basically impossible, so what exactly is the rogue supposed to do if the only tank goes down? Tell one of the spellcasters to go up to the enemies?

And with that definition how do you interpret Skulker allowing you to hide when you are lightly obscured? Does it make your enemies magically forget you're behind the barrel?

[ad_hoc]

I agree that the DEX is very high for a PC at only 3rd level. The rest of his stats are decent, but not so ridiculous. Fortunately for him, the Rogue doesn't seem to need much else.
As for the rest of the party, it is a bit of a mixed bag; we use rolled stats, and my group does not wish to stray from that idea. So some of them are really good, and others are subpar. There are a few 18s around the other PCs, but he has the only 20.

I would reconsider in the future, especially if you are using feats.

Stats are much more important now. A 20 Dex vs a 16 Dex you would get with point buy is +2 to hit, damage, initiative, good saves, and skills.

You don't even get that much from your proficiency bonus going up and that doesn't happen until 9th level.

Maxing out your primary stat like that also eliminates the trade off of taking a feat. Feats are powerful but so is that +1, unless you start with a 20 anyway.

Point Buy or Standard Array is the way to go in 5e. Both for balance and to keep meaningful character progression decisions in the game.

[Malifice]

@Malifice: So by your extremely narrow view of hidden and hiding, actually hiding yourself in battle is basically impossible, so what exactly is the rogue supposed to do if the only tank goes down? Tell one of the spellcasters to go up to the enemies?

And with that definition how do you interpret Skulker allowing you to hide when you are lightly obscured? Does it make your enemies magically forget you're behind the barrel?

As to question 1, gain advantage on the attack somehow, or be a swashbuckler. Hiding isn't the only way to gain advantage.

As to question 2 I read skulker as allowing you to hide in light obscurement - when you aren't being observed in the attempt. I read skulker as changing what you can hide in - not removing the restriction on hiding while being observed. It doesn't allow you to use light obscurement to block LOS - it just allows you to hide in shadows when not being observed.

For an example an 'unhidden' skulker blunders around a corner into a shadowy corridor, containing a guard 20 feet away looking down the corridoor. As he has yet to take the hide action, the skulker cannot hide from that guard. The guard is aware of the presence of the skulker and is now observing him.

The same skulker could (before walking around the corner) use the hide action relative to the guard (the guard is unaware of his presence) and then (using the light concealment from the shadows) sneak down the corridoor past the guard maintaining his hiding. He could do the same thing if the guard was looking the other way (sneak past him in the shadows).

Skulker (and the wood elf and halfling abilities) only change what you can hide in and behind - they don't remove the restriction that you can't hide while under observation.

That's my take. feel free to run it differently.

[ChubbyRain]

Oh, also, start throwing way more mages and clerics against them. Readied Action -> Hold Person. Presuming you at least required some kind of dump stat for letting a character get away with 20 in a stat, just find the weakness and exploit it. Readied Action -> Phantasmal Force if Int is the dump stat, etc.

Other ways:
Fog Cloud/Sleet Storm combo with enemies that ignore it. Remember, the Rogue has to see you as well. What is their other expertise in? If it's Acrobatics, then attack the Rogue's Perception and vice versa. Go for monsters with high Athletics to Ready Action -> grapple.


First I want to point out that typically you aren't grappling a rogue. Expertise usually will say "no". Even creatures with high athletics become a joke to the rogue.

Secondly, those mages that have a readied action to cast a spell... Well they lose their spell if the trigger doesn't happen.

So whenever a DM does that my chara ter will tell the rogue to stay down. The casters are obviously (unless they have subtle spell) preparing to cast a spell at the rogue when he/she pops up.

If I'm a rogue and I'm told to stay down... I think my inaction is worth a caster or two wasting a spell.

[Gwendol]

As to question 1, gain advantage on the attack somehow, or be a swashbuckler. Hiding isn't the only way to gain advantage.

As to question 2 I read skulker as allowing you to hide in light obscurement - when you aren't being observed in the attempt. I read skulker as changing what you can hide in - not removing the restriction on hiding while being observed. It doesn't allow you to use light obscurement to block LOS - it just allows you to hide in shadows when not being observed.

For an example an 'unhidden' skulker blunders around a corner into a shadowy corridor, containing a guard 20 feet away looking down the corridoor. As he has yet to take the hide action, the skulker cannot hide from that guard. The guard is aware of the presence of the skulker and is now observing him.

The same skulker could (before walking around the corner) use the hide action relative to the guard (the guard is unaware of his presence) and then (using the light concealment from the shadows) sneak down the corridoor past the guard maintaining his hiding. He could do the same thing if the guard was looking the other way (sneak past him in the shadows).

Skulker (and the wood elf and halfling abilities) only change what you can hide in and behind - they don't remove the restriction that you can't hide while under observation.

That's my take. feel free to run it differently.

I believe the point of hiding is less about gaining advantage and more about not being a target for spells or attacks.

There is no restriction to hiding while under observation, evidenced by the text describing, for example, the skulker feat
You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured
from the creature from which you are hiding (not the most elegant of phrases, I admit).

[coredump]

? If they're actively looking they get to roll a Perception check, if they're just passively looking, they don't. there is no such thing as Passively Looking. You are misunderstanding what is meant by a passive skill check.



This is pretty much why moving from one hidden location to another requires the stealth check.but that doesn't mean you can stealth in any and all environments..... And if you can, there may be adv or disadvantage applied




. Common sense dictates that when you don't know where someone is, you can be surprised. That Halflings can hide using other people to block sightlines is reflective of how tricky they are I disagree. To me common sense dictates that if I know you are behind the tree, then you are not going to surprise me even if I can't currently see or hear you.

[ChubbyRain]

I disagree. To me common sense dictates that if I know you are behind the tree, then you are not going to surprise me even if I can't currently see or hear you.

So what side of the tree is the rogue going to jump out from? From what angle? Will the rogue tumble out? Will the rogue shoot an arrow or throw a dagger at you or one of your allies? Is the rogue right up on the tree or did he back away from the tree, keeping it blocking your LoS, and will attack from further away?

If you can know all of this every time you see a rogue go behind a tree then you need to stop playing games and go work for (name a company) because they would love your clairvoyance.

[Malifice]

I believe the point of hiding is less about gaining advantage and more about not being a target for spells or attacks.

There is no restriction to hiding while under observation, evidenced by the text describing, for example, the skulker feat (not the most elegant of phrases, I admit).

That paragraph doesn't alter my interpretation of the rules on hiding as a whole. Taken in the context of the entire rules on hiding, that (to me) simoly suggests one can maintain stealth in light obscurement.

I consider 'hiding' to mean: going into a hiding place, and not 'taking the hide action'. To me, to be hidden from someone infers that the person does not know where you are. It's a state of subjective knowledge vs objective reality.

But that's at my table. Each to their own.

[PlaygroundPixie]

So what side of the tree is the rogue going to jump out from? From what angle? Will the rogue tumble out? Will the rogue shoot an arrow or throw a dagger at you or one of your allies? Is the rogue right up on the tree or did he back away from the tree, keeping it blocking your LoS, and will attack from further away?

In what way does this differ from a character behind Total Cover who isn't taking the Hide action?

Should we apply the same mechanical benefits to both? Why or why not?

And assuming the same basic set of actions for both (going behind a tree, shooting an arrow, going back behind the tree, and shooting again later), what is the narrative difference between the two that makes one firing from behind cover, and the other Hiding?

[Xetheral]

By raw they are hidden until such time as the hide check is beaten by a perception check. You are free to house rule otherwise.

I don't see this anywhere in the rules. It seems just as valid to assume that if you lose the requirements for hiding (i.e. not being seen) you are no longer hidden.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that the requirements for hiding and the requirements for staying hidden are different.

Of course, there's also nothing in the rules saying the requirements are the same. I find it maddening. :(

[Gwendol]

In what way does this differ from a character behind Total Cover who isn't taking the Hide action?

Should we apply the same mechanical benefits to both? Why or why not?

And assuming the same basic set of actions for both (going behind a tree, shooting an arrow, going back behind the tree, and shooting again later), what is the narrative difference between the two that makes one firing from behind cover, and the other Hiding?

If successfully hidden, his whereabouts are unknown. If behind cover, presumably some audible or visible clues may give an indication of his wereabouts. This example does highlight the problem with the current ruleset, and it is one I've brought up before. In 5e the requirement for hiding is that you can't be seen, that is behind sufficient cover or heavy obscuration. Or invisible. However, if those are fulfilled, why hide? No-one can see you anyway, and all you have to do is stay quiet. In other words, if no-one can see you simply roll a contested stealth roll to see if you are also unheard (or avoid to leave traces, etc). Now, the rules also suggest that once hidden you may be able to stay that way until you are perceived or stop hiding, at least out of combat.

I wish they had kept the 3.5 rules for hiding, but instead we got this mess.

[coredump]

So what side of the tree is the rogue going to jump out from? From what angle? Will the rogue tumble out? Will the rogue shoot an arrow or throw a dagger at you or one of your allies? Is the rogue right up on the tree or did he back away from the tree, keeping it blocking your LoS, and will attack from further away? None of those will make me 'surprised'.... At best it *might* be unexpected.

Almost all of those 'unknowns' apply just as well to a rogue standing in front of the tree
Will he move left or right? Will he move at an angle? Will he tumble away? Will he shoot an arrow or throw a dagger? Will he shoot at me or one of my allies? Will he shoot my leg or my head.

But.... a rogue in front of the tree might shoot at any second, a rogue behind a tree has to telegraph the attack by moving enough to see and shoot. Kind of a give away.


If you can know all of this every time you see a rogue go behind a tree then you need to stop playing games and go work for (name a company) because they would love your clairvoyance.Your irrelevant snark aside... I don't need to know that every time, I don't need to know it ever. People move around and make unexpected attacks all the time in DnD... and we just treat it like any other attack.

[coredump]

I don't see this anywhere in the rules. It seems just as valid to assume that if you lose the requirements for hiding (i.e. not being seen) you are no longer hidden.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that the requirements for hiding and the requirements for staying hidden are different.

Of course, there's also nothing in the rules saying the requirements are the same. I find it maddening. :(
While you make a very good point, you don't even need the cover. A person standing in the open 'might' move right or 'might' move left... oh no... how will you adapt to the unknown....

And a person in the open can watch me the entire time, will know if I have moved, or if someone is now in the way. A person behind a tree has to move into the open, then find and assess his target, then shoot.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't see this anywhere in the rules. It seems just as valid to assume that if you lose the requirements for hiding (i.e. not being seen) you are no longer hidden.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that the requirements for hiding and the requirements for staying hidden are different.

Of course, there's also nothing in the rules saying the requirements are the same. I find it maddening. :(

Here, allow me to help you pinpoint the rules.

On the rules for being found after hiding, we turn to the giant text box on Page 177: "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

On the differentiation between the act of hiding and remaining hidden, we need to do some actual contextual observation, also in the page 177 text box: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you," and "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." These simple phrasings indicate two states of being: That of the one who is not hidden but wishes to attempt to hide, and that of the currently hidden.

For good measure, we also have the later statement in that very same location on Passive perception checks to notice those who are hiding then not actively searching.

[MeeposFire]

Just as an aside ever used a toaster? Somehow even though you put the bread in the toaster and set it yourself hasn't anybody here ever get surprised by the toaster while watching it? Its crazy they had a classic comedy sketch just talking about being scared by the toaster.

[goto124]

Have we made the distinction between 'hiding' and 'concealed'?

[Dimcair]

Passive perception in combat on a foe that already has been revealed once?

Those should be opposed rolls. And it is not a search action since it is the rogue that tries to hide, the opposing roll is for free to set the DC.

[Malifice]

Passive perception in combat on a foe that already has been revealed once?

Those should be opposed rolls. And it is not a search action since it is the rogue that tries to hide, the opposing roll is for free to set the DC.

Opposed rolls dont really add that much of an advantage though seeing as the average roll will be 10.5.

[Dimcair]

Opposed rolls dont really add that much of an advantage though seeing as the average roll will be 10.5.

I think there is a rather big difference between auto-succeed and succeed on average or mostly.

Besides, if sb breaks LOS and attempts to hide, then moves without crossing any open areas (where the DC could be adjusted accordingly), it is entirely his right to do so and mostly succeed.

[Dimcair]

Opposed rolls dont really add that much of an advantage though seeing as the average roll will be 10.5.

+ according to that logic a search check would accomplish the same thing but with the added bonus of wasting your action.... Whats your point oO

[Malifice]

I think there is a rather big difference between auto-succeed and succeed on average or mostly.

Besides, if sb breaks LOS and attempts to hide, then moves without crossing any open areas (where the DC could be adjusted accordingly), it is entirely his right to do so and mostly succeed.

I run it a bit differently. Move + Break LOS + Hide generally doesnt work in my games if the creature in question saw you break LOS and still knows where you are. Jumping in a box, or halflings ducking back behind the fighter or similar in full view of the enemy generally wont work in my games.

That said, in the current scenario I would allow the Rogue to duck down into the grass and attempt to Hide seeing as when he ducks down he could be anywhere in a 70' radius of where he ducked down into. The environment (in this case) is enough to make his position sufficiently hard to pin down for anyone watching him duck into the long grass.

I would allow creatures to use their action to Search for the rogue, and then call out his position on a success (allowing people to target the Rogue with attacks at disadvantage, or simply move over to where the Rogue is, without needing a perception check of their own).

[Dimcair]

Move + Break LOS + Hide Break LOS+Move/Hide

You got the order mixed up.

[Malifice]

You got the order mixed up.

You cant break LOS without moving.

[Dimcair]

That is:

1. Not true

and

2. Only a matter of wording, then move to break LS and then hide and move again. You are way too petty-minded to be taken seriously^^

[Malifice]

That is:

1. Not true

How can you break LOS standing still?

If you want to duck down you have to use some of your movement that round.

It's totally true. Mechanically and via common sense.

No need to get snarky bro.

[Hawkstar]

There are three schools of thought on this depending on your interpretation of 'you cannot hide when you are being watched'.

The first school of thought is the 'gamist' school: Any time the Rogue breaks LOS by moving behind cover or concealment he can use the Hide action and become hidden, despite the enemy in question knowing where the Rogue is. This is the 'You cannot take the Hide action from a creature that is watching you' interpretation of 'cant hide when you are being watched'.

The second school of thought is the 'common sense' school: If the Rogue moves into cover he cannot hide if he was observed prior to his gaining total concealment or cover. The enemy still knows where the Rogue is with sufficient precision; he is not 'hidden' (although he may not be able to be seen). This is the 'You cannot hide from a creature that is watching you go into your hiding spot' interpretation of 'cant hide when you are being watched'.To be fair, there are also points where "common sense' and 'gamist' allow rogues to hide where the other would not. The gamist says "You can only hide IF and ONLY IF you have full concealment from the enemy". The Common Sense side says you can hide even if it's possible for the enemy to see where you are, but they weren't/aren't watching for you because of distractions. (Don't tell me you've never failed to see something that's sitting out in the open or on a 'busy' surface.)

The Hide action is always contested by the perception skill of everyone around - for most people, it's a 50/50 chance of working against a single target. Rogues have an advantage if they have Expertise in hiding.


If you want to duck down you have to use some of your movement that round.No you don't. The motion necessary to hide doesn't have to come from your "movement" pool, but instead is part of the 'action' to Hide. Or do you also have to use some of your movement in a round to swing a sword?

[Dimcair]

How can you break LOS standing still?

If you want to duck down you have to use some of your movement that round.

It's totally true. Mechanically and via common sense.

No need to get snarky bro.

More options with standing up straight off the top of my head:

Something moves in between you and your enemy
Any invisibility effects

/Plus: Do actually address the issues raised in a post rather than just going deeper in the rabbit hole....bro....

[Gwendol]

How can you break LOS standing still?

If you want to duck down you have to use some of your movement that round.

It's totally true. Mechanically and via common sense.

No need to get snarky bro.

As Hawkstar already pointed out, hiding is an action that presumably involves some movement (or else it wouldn't cost you one). Ducking down in the high grass, for example.

[coredump]

The Common Sense side says you can hide even if it's possible for the enemy to see where you are, but they weren't/aren't watching for you because of distractions. (Don't tell me you've never failed to see something that's sitting out in the open or on a 'busy' surface.) "common sense' or not... I assert that this approach works quite well within RAW. (It is not *mandated* by RAW, but it fits within the rules framework provided.)

[SharkForce]

While you make a very good point, you don't even need the cover. A person standing in the open 'might' move right or 'might' move left... oh no... how will you adapt to the unknown....

And a person in the open can watch me the entire time, will know if I have moved, or if someone is now in the way. A person behind a tree has to move into the open, then find and assess his target, then shoot.

unless you assume that people who are skilled at hiding are also good at being able to be aware while hiding, such that they can stealthily observe you and plan their attack before they make the attack.

[Mellack]

How can you break LOS standing still?
.

An object moves between you such as a carriage, boat, large animal, sliding wall, blowing smoke...

Someone casts a spell such as invisibility, fog cloud, darkness, wall of stone...

Lots of possibilities.

[numerek]

Let's compare Barb and Rogue quickly, assuming STR/DEX is a +4.

At level 3:

Raging Barbarian swings: 1d12 + 2 (Rage) + 4 (STR), attacks Recklessly (advantage) = 12.5 damage
Rogue SA: 1d8 + 2d6 (SA) + 4 (DEX), attacks from hiding (advantage) = 15.5 damage

Rogue deals more damage if he can hide each turn, but only 3 more on average.

Rogue is less likely to get hit due to constantly hiding. But Barbarian has 33% more HP (d8 vs d12) and Damage Reduction (half dmg) to soak way more hits.


Raging two weapon fighting barbarian swings: 2d6 + 4 (Rage) + 4(str), recklessly = 15 damage
Rogue only ahead by half a point

and the rogue won't get advantage if he is two weapon fighting.

Two weapon fighting fighter would be similar but without advantage although he would have improved critical or battle maneuvers or spells(but I don't think spells will help get his damage up)

Two weapon fighting fighter swings: 2d6 + 8 (str) = 15 damage
Though unless the dm lets him change fighting styles later he's kinda locked in whereas the barbarian can switch to a two handed weapon at any time.

[Psikerlord]

I am currently DMing a game that has just got up to 3rd level. I am quickly noticing that the Rogue in the party is particularly strong. Noticeably stronger than the Barbarian or the Fighter.
This is largely due to the Rogue's cunning action ability that allows the player to shoot an arrow, then hide as a bonus action, then move (at half speed), ensuring that they end their turn hidden, and the enemies have no way of knowing exactly where they are.
They can then attack the next turn (with advantage and sneak attack) and repeat this process.

The PC has 20 Dex and expertise in Stealth, giving them a +9 to stealth. Most enemies I have worked with seem to have something like 12 passive perception, ensuring that the PC successfully hides pretty much every time.

Note: The PC is a Wood Elf, and can hide easily in Natural Environments, he also plans to take the Skulker feat next level, making it even easier to disappear in virtually any environment.

Has anyone else noticed this issue? Am I missing something? Or is this something that will balance out better as levels go up?
IMO the best cure for this issue is swapping the 2nd level rogue ability with the 3rd level swashbuckler rogue ability in the latest unearthed arcana (just came out last week). The rogue can still skirmish in and out of melee, but no free hide every round.