Goblins are scary

[Ardantis]

So, my school club sits down to play Lost Mines of Phandelver at our first meeting. We introduce our level one pre-gen characters, compare backgrounds, and learn about how attacks and skills work.

Then we begin. The first encounter is the group getting ambushed by 4 goblins, 2 ranged and 2 melee. Our Cleric and Fighter are up front, investigating some dead horses on the trail, and...

Their passive perception isn't high enough to notice the goblins (I rolled Stealth for each one).

2 goblins shoot arrows, 2 goblins charge, and one surprise round later... our Cleric (AC 18) is DOWN.

The combat continues. Our Fighter (AC 17) is apparently untouchable, and over the course of a round the Rogue skewers a goblin with an arrow, the Wizard zaps another goblin with Magic Missile, and the other Fighter just barely kills one of the archer goblins with a long shot from his bow. Granted, this was the goblin who rolled a natural 1 on his bow shot the round before and thus lost his Stealth for the round, but still.

Party regroups during the round, too, circling the wagons so they can go get the Cleric.

Last goblin pops up.

One arrow, max damage.

Drops the Wizard. EXACT DAMAGE.

Holy Moley! Rogues can't even Hide as a move action at level one, and these goblins are like the Viet Cong hiding out in the woods.

Our archer nailed that last gobbo after he flubbed his Hide check, but if he'd kept hiding he could have harassed us for a few more rounds of potential disaster.

MY MISTAKES:

I canceled out the first archer goblin's stealth when he rolled a natural 1 for an attack (to be nice).
I didn't have the last goblin run away after his buddies were killed (because I didn't read close enough).

LESSONS LEARNED:

The Starter Set isn't messing around. Protect your squishies and support characters!

[Sigreid]

Your players will have a easier time when they learn how to respond to strange things with the appropriate level of paranoia. They should all be hallucinating Admiral Ackbar saying "It's a Trap!" at all times.

[Atalas]

The proper level of paranoia is believing that everything is out to kill you. from the small woodland critters the druid talks to, to the rocks and stones just lying on the ground. and that there's another enemy hiding behind everything. you're only potentially safe within inter-dimensional spaces like Mordekanian's Magnificent Mansion and the like, and even then if you've attracted the attention of a particularly powerful foe even then you may not be safe.

[Gracht Grabmaw]

I played that module myself recently. After wading through hordes of goblins, human rednecks and zombies the thing that finally got the first PC kill was a pack of wolves that snuck into our camp at night and ripped out the fighter's throat before he had a chance to get up.

Ambushes and stealthy enemies in general are NOT to be ****ed with.

[Malifice]

So, my school club sits down to play Lost Mines of Phandelver at our first meeting. We introduce our level one pre-gen characters, compare backgrounds, and learn about how attacks and skills work.

Then we begin. The first encounter is the group getting ambushed by 4 goblins, 2 ranged and 2 melee. Our Cleric and Fighter are up front, investigating some dead horses on the trail, and...

Their passive perception isn't high enough to notice the goblins (I rolled Stealth for each one).

2 goblins shoot arrows, 2 goblins charge, and one surprise round later... our Cleric (AC 18) is DOWN.

The combat continues. Our Fighter (AC 17) is apparently untouchable, and over the course of a round the Rogue skewers a goblin with an arrow, the Wizard zaps another goblin with Magic Missile, and the other Fighter just barely kills one of the archer goblins with a long shot from his bow. Granted, this was the goblin who rolled a natural 1 on his bow shot the round before and thus lost his Stealth for the round, but still.

Party regroups during the round, too, circling the wagons so they can go get the Cleric.

Last goblin pops up.

One arrow, max damage.

Drops the Wizard. EXACT DAMAGE.

Holy Moley! Rogues can't even Hide as a move action at level one, and these goblins are like the Viet Cong hiding out in the woods.

Our archer nailed that last gobbo after he flubbed his Hide check, but if he'd kept hiding he could have harassed us for a few more rounds of potential disaster.

MY MISTAKES:

I canceled out the first archer goblin's stealth when he rolled a natural 1 for an attack (to be nice).
I didn't have the last goblin run away after his buddies were killed (because I didn't read close enough).

LESSONS LEARNED:

The Starter Set isn't messing around. Protect your squishies and support characters!

How were the goblins maintaining stealth after making attacks?

As soon as they attack (from hiding) they reveal themselves. Hit or miss. Its then another action to hide again (and arguably may not even be possible depending on ones interpretation of the stealth rules).

You didn't make a mistake revealing the goblin that rolled a 1 on his Attack. Your mistake was not revealing all of them after attacking - hit or miss.

[JellyPooga]

To be fair the pre-gen characters you get handed are pretty badly built. The Rogue, particularly, is a horrific excuse for a Rogue; IIRC he doesn't even have a single dagger in his starting gear! What kind of Rogue doesn't have a dagger? I know that the Charisma Rogue is a thing, but did they really have to give him, what was it, 16? 14 is quite sufficient, thanks. Shove those points into Con; Daddy needs some more HP! Oh yeah, whilst I'm ranting about the pre-gen Rogues stats; Int 8? INTELLIGENCE 8!?! Ye gods, Rogues are supposed to be cunning; I can't be coming up with tricksy plans and feeling smug and superior with Int 8. Yeesh.[/Rogue rant]

(Disclaimer: I'm going entirely off of my memory of the pregen Rogue from that module. I could be wrong about any of the above. I still stand by my rant; it isa badly built Rogue, whatever its stats)

[Mr.Moron]

To be fair the pre-gen characters you get handed are pretty badly built. The Rogue, particularly, is a horrific excuse for a Rogue; IIRC he doesn't even have a single dagger in his starting gear! What kind of Rogue doesn't have a dagger? I know that the Charisma Rogue is a thing, but did they really have to give him, what was it, 16? 14 is quite sufficient, thanks. Shove those points into Con; Daddy needs some more HP! Oh yeah, whilst I'm ranting about the pre-gen Rogues stats; Int 8? INTELLIGENCE 8!?! Ye gods, Rogues are supposed to be cunning; I can't be coming up with tricksy plans and feeling smug and superior with Int 8. Yeesh.[/Rogue rant]

(Disclaimer: I'm going entirely off of my memory of the pregen Rogue from that module. I could be wrong about any of the above. I still stand by my rant; it isa badly built Rogue, whatever its stats)

Some folks are of slightly below average intelligence, even if they are found of sneaking around and picking locks. It turns out there are viable character concepts that aren't optimized.

[Anonymouswizard]

Part of the problem is that level 1 is fantasy Vietnam, where even a full-hp barbarian can be brought down by a lucky crit. At later levels, as long as the DM doesn't pull out big enemies all the time, front line characters have the HP go survive a couple of hits, which isn't certain at low levels.

Otherwise, players need to be paranoid. Either make sure your Cleric trained Perception or your Rogue has decent t Wis and Perception (for that matter, decent Int and investigation).

[JellyPooga]

Some folks are of slightly below average intelligence, even if they are found of sneaking around and picking locks. It turns out there are viable character concepts that aren't optimized.

The build of the pre-gen is probably a better one from an optimisation point of view than I'd have been happy with; Int really does nothing for the Rogue (unless you want to go Arcane Trickster and even then it's not essential), so it's a safe dump-stat. Charisma is a solid Save to buff up and Cha skills are essential when you need them, especially if no-one else in the group has them. Optimisation isn't what my rant is about; character concept is. After all, did you you really think I was thinking about power gaming when I mentioned the things about daggers?

[Aasimar]

Some folks are of slightly below average intelligence, even if they are found of sneaking around and picking locks. It turns out there are viable character concepts that aren't optimized.

Be that as it may, an idiot who steals and picks locks is not generally the type that many people aspire to when they want to play a rogue...and I mean stylistically, not optimizationally.

Also, from an optimization point of view, rogue has enough problems as a class keeping up with the other classes in a variety of situations without intentionally gumming up the works in one of the few areas where he does stand out (skills)

[Astovidas]

How were the goblins maintaining stealth after making attacks?

As soon as they attack (from hiding) they reveal themselves. Hit or miss. Its then another action to hide again (and arguably may not even be possible depending on ones interpretation of the stealth rules).

You didn't make a mistake revealing the goblin that rolled a 1 on his Attack. Your mistake was not revealing all of them after attacking - hit or miss.

The goblins in 5e have the "Nimble Escape" ability which lets them hide or disengage as a bonus action. The Goblin pops out of hiding, shoots an arrow, runs behind some trees and bushes and hides again. Next turn, he pops out somewhere else.
So OP was completely right to let them hide again.

Level 1 is pretty hard in 5e, but they still have to be careful later on. When I ran the module with my group they had some other troubles later on.
In the Wave Echo Cave there is a Flameskull that can really mess with a group, that stays close together. And of course Venomfang in Thundertree is a really hard encounter as well.

[Slipperychicken]

LESSONS LEARNED:

The Starter Set isn't messing around. Protect your squishies and support characters!

Also, level 1 PCs are squishy as all hell.

They're sort of like normal people: if they get hit with lethal weapons, there's no guarantee they'll be standing after that. Even "just a few arrows" can kill them.

You get less squishy around level 4 or 5, so be careful until then.

[Mrmox42]

The Bugbear from the Goblin lair came as a nasty surprise for my players. Even though they managed to surprise him, he took down 3 of the 4 players before he went down himself.

Now the characters are second level and claim that they will eat Bugbears for breakfast. I haven't told them about the extra damage that Bugbears do when they surprise you :smallamused:

[Shining Wrath]

Be careful with the Bugbears in LMoP. Extra D8 damage on each hit is pretty bad at low levels; my Cleric died the real death when the first bugbear we met landed a critical on his first attack. 24 damage on a L1 Cleric with 11 HP ...

[DanyBallon]

We were quite Lucky, after the goblin ambush, we went directly to town and we didn't clean up the goblin cave until after we were done with the gang in town. So we were about 3rd level when we encountered the bugbear :)

[DivisibleByZero]

Our table had two deaths during LMoP. Lots and lots and LOTS of downed characters, and two deaths.

The first death came during the boss fight in Redbrand hideout/castle/whatever with his doppleganger companion. The party fought the owlbear down the hall after first checking out the hallway. As they made a ton of noise fighting, and then checked out the hallway, and then made a ton more noise fighting the owlbear, the doppleganger behind the door knew they were coming. They then decided to take a short rest, so the doppleganger had plenty of time to read their minds, and was fully prepared.
When they entered the room, the monk charged right in first thing, doppleganger got the drop on him from behind and downed him.
They got him up, and the entire rest of the party went down. Last two standing were the monk and doppleganger.
The doppleganger fled (because I didn't want to TPK them) and the monk started stabilizing people, pouring potions in mouths, etc.
We play where instead of rolling death saves each round, you track the number of rounds and roll them all at once when help arrives. The cleric had been down for six rounds by the time they got to him.
He rolled five death saves, and by the time they got to him he was already a corpse.

The second death came because the druid was stupid.
The route they took led them through the poison spores before they got to the buildings containing the wight(?) and the Watcher/Observer/whatever. Everyone was poisoned.
The Pally and a potion healed the poison from everyone but the druid. The druid was going to hang back and heal/support. He didn't, and he was the one that got attacked.
Hit > Con save at disadvantage obviously failed > Damage + max HP reduced
Lather, rinse, repeat. He was dead the moment he hit the ground, no death saves required, because his max HP reached zero.
He would have risen as an undead himself had the book not specifically stated that this wasn't something that the wight liked to do.

[eastmabl]

I have a module that I wrote and have run a number of times for the Greyhawk Reborn living campaign which is for levels 1-2 and has many goblins in it.

As a DM, I've learned that using the average damage at first level is a good way to avoid killing party members. No one should go from healthy to dying from 5 points of damage, but 9 (1d6+3) will do in a lot of characters.

[DivisibleByZero]

As a DM, I've learned that using the average damage at first level is a good way to avoid killing party members. No one should go from healthy to dying from 5 points of damage, but 9 (1d6+3) will do in a lot of characters.

I use average damage for all monsters all the time, with the exception of bosses. Bosses roll damage. It makes normal combat less swingy, but keeps boss fights potentially swingy (as well they should be).
It also speeds up play, as there are less dice to roll.

[Malifice]

The goblins in 5e have the "Nimble Escape" ability which lets them hide or disengage as a bonus action. The Goblin pops out of hiding, shoots an arrow, runs behind some trees and bushes and hides again. Next turn, he pops out somewhere else.
So OP was completely right to let them hide again.

Depends on if you allow hiding while under observation. I dont.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, my school club sits down to play Lost Mines of Phandelver at our first meeting. We introduce our level one pre-gen characters, compare backgrounds, and learn about how attacks and skills work.

Then we begin. The first encounter is the group getting ambushed by 4 goblins, 2 ranged and 2 melee. Our Cleric and Fighter are up front, investigating some dead horses on the trail, and...

Their passive perception isn't high enough to notice the goblins (I rolled Stealth for each one).

2 goblins shoot arrows, 2 goblins charge, and one surprise round later... our Cleric (AC 18) is DOWN.

The combat continues. Our Fighter (AC 17) is apparently untouchable, and over the course of a round the Rogue skewers a goblin with an arrow, the Wizard zaps another goblin with Magic Missile, and the other Fighter just barely kills one of the archer goblins with a long shot from his bow. Granted, this was the goblin who rolled a natural 1 on his bow shot the round before and thus lost his Stealth for the round, but still.

Party regroups during the round, too, circling the wagons so they can go get the Cleric.

Last goblin pops up.

One arrow, max damage.

Drops the Wizard. EXACT DAMAGE.

Holy Moley! Rogues can't even Hide as a move action at level one, and these goblins are like the Viet Cong hiding out in the woods.

Our archer nailed that last gobbo after he flubbed his Hide check, but if he'd kept hiding he could have harassed us for a few more rounds of potential disaster.

MY MISTAKES:

I canceled out the first archer goblin's stealth when he rolled a natural 1 for an attack (to be nice).
I didn't have the last goblin run away after his buddies were killed (because I didn't read close enough).

LESSONS LEARNED:

The Starter Set isn't messing around. Protect your squishies and support characters!

Yeah, having a couple high hp high AC characters can be extremely important as many combats can go really easy or really badly depending on die rolls.

For the Wizard, I'd advise them to pick up the Shield and or Mirror Image spells, that'll improve their survivability alot.
As the rogue I'd probably, like the Goblins, seek somewhere they can hide, and then ready an action to shoot at the goblins if they pop up until they get cunning action.


I played that module myself recently. After wading through hordes of goblins, human rednecks and zombies the thing that finally got the first PC kill was a pack of wolves that snuck into our camp at night and ripped out the fighter's throat before he had a chance to get up.

I find players tend to forget to set a watch only the first time.


The Bugbear from the Goblin lair came as a nasty surprise for my players. Even though they managed to surprise him, he took down 3 of the 4 players before he went down himself.

Now the characters are second level and claim that they will eat Bugbears for breakfast. I haven't told them about the extra damage that Bugbears do when they surprise you

I'm playing a Battlemaster and things like this are exactly why I nova on anyone I identify as a dangerous enemy (action surge + as many maneuver dice as I can) to try and mess them up promptly.

[Coidzor]

The Starter Set isn't messing around. Protect your squishies and support characters!

The bugbears are going to be fun, yeah.

[sophontteks]

I did my first game as dm with 3 new players using the starter. The druid determined that an ambush was coming using speak to animals. She listened to the birds who were apparently waiting for these little green things in the woods to leave. From there they tracked them down and killed two in an ambush of their own. As I DM I had to give a pause of shock. Speak to freaking animals man.

That sent the tempo for how they handled the rest of part 1 where they went right for the bugbear and wrecked the cave from the inside out.

[Ardantis]

Yeah, I have to agree with most everyone on the response. Goblins at level one are deadly, and that's a fact.

I allowed for hiding under observation because I think PCs should also have that ability (it rewards Rogues especially).

The Wizard needs to learn to hide- he may be heavy artillery but he is NOT a tank!

Even the Cleric needs to be more careful- losing a Fighter is less detrimental to the team than losing the Cleric. High Cleric AC is additional protection for a class which should be played conservatively, while high Fighter AC allows them to take risks and maneuver for damage.

Next session is next month- when we tackle the Goblin Cave!

[Taejang]

Goblins are pretty scary. That hide bonus action will get PCs every time. The other scary low-level enemy: wolves. Pack Tactics giving advantage on attacks means they almost never miss.


The party split up in Phandolin, where the campaign kind of encourages the DM to have some kind of Redbrand encounter. As a result, a monk and a wizard were faced with four Redbrand thugs. The wizard used Burning Hands before going down, and the monk didn't last much longer. Thugs robbed them blind and left them in the street to die, but the other two PCs reached them first. The party named one of the Redbrands Frank, and identified him later by his burned face. They relished murdering Frank more than any of the bosses in the entire campaign.

At character level 3-4, they reached Venomfang. As any smart party, they tried to negotiate, playing the cultists off the dragon. During the discussion, the monk got frustrated and shot Venomfang in the face with an arrow. Thanks to some brilliant Spike Growth usage and lucky rolls, the party defeated the entire group of cultists and the dragon at the same time, though had multiple characters down and up and down again with a cleric and druid using Healing Word.

The whole party nearly died to the Black Spider. They fought off some bugbears and then examined a wall at length, convinced it had a secret passage. Giant spiders, the bugbears who had retreated, and of course the Black Spider himself all got the jump on them. What followed was the charming of the spiders, much fighting, the monk dying after failing three saves, and two more characters going unconscious. The gnome druid managed to hide in the corner of a pillar where none of the (large) melee characters could get to her and the ranged attacks were made at cover, and then she used Moonbeam to wreck the entire enemy group (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53120/is-moonbeam-amazing-or-are-we-doing-it-wrong). In the end, the ceiling collapsed, the PCs nearly didn't make it (after another round of saving throws), but they did it. It was amazing, but very, very close to a TPK.

[MeeposFire]

Kobolds are nasty too.

[Ardantis]

Kobolds are nasty too.

What do Kobolds do?

[MaxWilson]

What do Kobolds do?

Nets and slings and pit traps.

[Anonymouswizard]

Nets and slings and pit traps.

Don't forget the barricades, crossbows, alchemist's fire...

[Flashy]

What do Kobolds do?

They have advantage on attack rolls if more than one is fighting the same enemy.

[Taejang]

Kobolds are nasty too.


What do Kobolds do?


Nets and slings and pit traps.


Don't forget the barricades, crossbows, alchemist's fire...


They have advantage on attack rolls if more than one is fighting the same enemy.

Let Old Man Tucker (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/) teach you a thing or two about kobolds.

[Ardantis]

I've read this before- scary as hell.

[MeeposFire]

What do Kobolds do?

In terms of 5e dangerous they get advantage when the gang up on a target which is really nasty at low levels. Look at posts about Horde of the Dragon Queen or whatever that first adventure book was. Kobolds were causing TPKs or near TPKs often.

[Ardantis]

So they have Pack Tactics, like wolves?

[Flashy]

Let Old Man Tucker (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/) teach you a thing or two about kobolds.

You know, I hadn't considered it before but I love that the one aspect of Tucker's kobolds that was very faintly cheating in 3.5 (moving, firing, and moving again) is now explicitly permitted by the rules.

[Malifice]

So they have Pack Tactics, like wolves?

Yup.

Goblins have it better (Hidden is better than pack tactics), but Goblins require a stealth check, and reveal themselves after attacking (hit or miss) meaning its easily negated with readied actions.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Depends on if you allow hiding while under observation. I dont.

The tricky thing is, attacking doesn't end a creature's turn in 5E. So a goblin can use part of its movement, attack, use its remaining movement to get under cover, then use its bonus action to hide.

That's perfectly legal under 5E rules, and yes it's scary.

[EggKookoo]

I allowed for hiding under observation because I think PCs should also have that ability (it rewards Rogues especially).

It's hard to distill from your description, but have you considered how much more it would have gone according to your preconceptions if you didn't allow hiding under observation? There may be a good reason why the rules say "you can't hide while being observed."

[Malifice]

The tricky thing is, attacking doesn't end a creature's turn in 5E. So a goblin can use part of its movement, attack, use its remaining movement to get under cover, then use its bonus action to hide.

That's perfectly legal under 5E rules, and yes it's scary.

And again, I disagree. Some DM's (myself included) do not allow a creature that is under observation 'cosely enough' to attempt to go into hiding (move to cover and take the Hide action) on its turn.

The Goblin can start the battle hidden, but as soon as it attacks it reveals its position. Unless the creature it attacks is distracted somehow or looking the other way, and stops tracking the Goblin, the Goblin can't attempt to hide again (although it can duck behind total cover or concealment). Next turn (as long as its in cover) it could move somewhere else under cover with no observation and attempt the stealth check/ hide action from a different spot (and then also attack thanks to cunning action).

Remember; despite the stop/start nature of DnD combat rounds, the action occurs simultaneously. The fighter getting shot at is almost certainly shooting back or charging the goblins position as the goblin runs over to his cover.

I dont allow 'jack in the box' Rogues in my campaigns. That said, 'hidden' in my campaigns = 'remove miniature from board, cannot be attacked, do not know where it is'.

This isnt an argument about which interpretation is correct (that debate has been raging for a year and I'm sick of it). It's just me expressing my interpretation.

[Crusher]

And again, I disagree. Some DM's (myself included) do not allow a creature that is under observation 'cosely enough' to attempt to go into hiding (move to cover and take the Hide action) on its turn.

The Goblin can start the battle hidden, but as soon as it attacks it reveals its position. Unless the creature it attacks is distracted somehow or looking the other way, and stops tracking the Goblin, the Goblin can't attempt to hide again (although it can duck behind total cover or concealment). Next turn (as long as its in cover) it could move somewhere else under cover with no observation and attempt the stealth check/ hide action from a different spot (and then also attack thanks to cunning action).

Remember; despite the stop/start nature of DnD combat rounds, the action occurs simultaneously. The fighter getting shot at is almost certainly shooting back or charging the goblins position as the goblin runs over to his cover.

I dont allow 'jack in the box' Rogues in my campaigns. That said, 'hidden' in my campaigns = 'remove miniature from board, cannot be attacked, do not know where it is'.

This isnt an argument about which interpretation is correct (that debate has been raging for a year and I'm sick of it). It's just me expressing my interpretation.

Hmm. Under what conditions would the goblins' ability to Hide as a bonus action be usable in your campaign? Because my suspicion is that the answer is "virtually none", suggesting you're interpreting this a little more tightly than the rules imply, which is totally fine. In the campaign I'm DMing I monkey-ed around with a number of rules (less health recovered during both long and short rests, and Sharp Shooter and GWM, instead of being -5/+10, I make them -(proficiency bonus)/+(2*proficiency bonus)). By the rules, my changes are clearly incorrect, I just like the way the game plays better with them.

All that having been said, this could be a matter of interpretation. In that fight, 2 goblins charge down with scimitars and 2 hang back on the edge of the moderately dense forest and shoot arrows. If I was DMing that particular fight (and I have, but it worked out kinda unexpectedly. My players were brand new to D&D and I was afraid they'd get themselves killed on the very first fight, so I ran another adventure with them first (in which the rogue very nearly got himself one-shot in the very first fight), so they did that fight at 2nd level instead of first. I tossed in 3 extra goblins to balance things a little bit, but it didn't end up mattering. The players were far cannier than I expected and the ranger and the druid headed into the woods the instant they saw the horses, both rolled 15+ on their stealth rolls, and they actually ambushed the goblin archers), even if the melee goblins were standing right next to the forest, they couldn't swing, step 5' into the forest behind a couple trees and Hide. That'd be ludicrous.

On the other hand, lets say the goblin archers are 70' away from the poor schlep checking out the horses (or whatever max non-disadvantage range is for short bows). Those goblins firing arrows, promptly running 30' back into the trees, and then Hiding (as a bonus action) seems entirely reasonable. They're certainly out of sight of whoever is by the horses (and that person is also distracted by screaming goblins trying to gut them) and have tons of cover. Saying they're under "close observation" by whoever is fighting the melee goblins is silly. They're 100' away and have tons of cover and/or concealment. Will they automatically Hide? Of course not, that's what the opposed skill rolls are for. But its entirely reasonable to at least give them a chance. Now if there weren't melee goblins in the horse-inspecters' faces and the archers were, say, 20' away, then I probably would not allow them to attempt to Hide. They aren't really that far away and the PCs can reach them that turn with a Dash. Under those circumstances I'd say the goblins can't just instantly melt away into the woods.

So, hard and fast rules are bad, it should depend on the circumstances.

[Malifice]

Hmm. Under what conditions would the goblins' ability to Hide as a bonus action be usable in your campaign?

Whenever they are not being observed closely enough to enable the Hide check.

I actually gave an example above.

[Tanarii]

Next turn (as long as its in cover) it could move somewhere else under cover with no observation and attempt the stealth check/ hide action from a different spot (and then also attack thanks to cunning action).i don't see why, even under you close observation ruling, a creature can't move behind cover, then once out of sight move to a different spot behind the same cover, then hide, then keep moving, all on the same round it attacked. As long as it had enough movement and a big enough area of cover (like a forested area), that should be completely reasonable and in keeping with your ruling. The observer can't closely observe it's new position it moved to once it's moved from where it ducked into cover. And it's moved from the place where it hid.

The simulation of this is it ducks behind something, the person saw where it ducked, then heard some movement which stopped. It saw where the creature disappeared and know where it moved after that from the noise it was making, but that's it.

Obviously it wouldn't work for a pillar or single tree. But it should work fine with forest & heavy undergrowth, or a corner to disappear behind, or a large enough table or cart flipped on its side, or pavilion tent, etc.

[Malifice]

i don't see why, even under you close observation ruling, a creature can't move behind cover, then once out of sight move to a different spot behind the same cover, then hide, then keep moving, all on the same round it attacked. As long as it had enough movement and a big enough area of cover (like a forested area), that should be completely reasonable and in keeping with your ruling. The observer can't closely observe it's new position it moved to once it's moved from where it ducked into cover. And it's moved from the place where it hid.

The simulation of this is it ducks behind something, the person saw where it ducked, then heard some movement which stopped. It saw where the creature disappeared and know where it moved after that from the noise it was making, but that's it.

Obviously it wouldn't work for a pillar or single tree. But it should work fine with forest & heavy undergrowth, or a corner to disappear behind, or a large enough table or cart flipped on its side, or pavilion tent, etc.

If you read my post closely above, I more or less do allow that - I just require the movement under cover and the Hide check to be made during the following round (combat being simultaneous despite the cyclical nature of how it is resolved) when the creature starts its turn in cover and is able to use that cover to move to a different spot where it's location cannot be reasonably inferred.

On a succesful Hide check, the other combatants no longer know where the creature is.

[Tanarii]

Why can't it so it the same round? Simultaneous or not, once it's out of sight, it can't be closely observed any more. So long as it has sufficient movement left and it's bonus action to Hide with, what's stopping it from Hiding? It's no longer closely observed at that point in time, whenever that point may be.

Or is it the opponents ability to counter attack that you're accounting for with the 'simultaneous' factor? In that case, how do you deal with creatures that just run around a corner without hiding? Can opponents still target them while they're in view, before they break line of sight?

[Malifice]

Why can't it so it the same round? Simultaneous or not, once it's out of sight, it can't be closely observed any more.

Because that round I am observing the goblin going into its hiding spot, and I know where it is with sufficient precision.

'You cant hide when being observed' to me translates to:

'You can attempt the hide action during any turn that your opponent does not know where you are with sufficient precision',

and not as:

'You can attempt the hide action at any time on your turn simply by breaking LOS'.

Im kind of making the (reasonable) assumption that the PC (who just got shot) who automatically notices the Goblin pop up (by RAW) is simultanously charging towards the Goblins position following his movement post shot being fired.

I might allow long range sniping where it could not be reasonably inferred that the PC automatically noticed the sniper due to range etc. From memory this encounter happens on a forest trail at close (within melee range) though.


In that case, how do you deal with creatures that just run around a corner without hiding?

Theyre not hiding. Your character can just walk over to them, go around the corner, and smack them in the head.

If they were hiding, you would not be allowed to walk over and smack them in the head (your character doesnt know where they are) you either need to take the search action, or make a very lucky guess.

[EggKookoo]

If you read my post closely above, I more or less do allow that - I just require the movement under cover and the Hide check to be made during the following round (combat being simultaneous despite the cyclical nature of how it is resolved) when the creature starts its turn in cover and is able to use that cover to move to a different spot where it's location cannot be reasonably inferred.

The "starts its turn hidden" is a key thing here. Not that I think that's literally expected, but hiding is an action, right? So we have this:


Goblin shoots its arrow from its hiding spot (either it just fires from the shrubbery or stands up, either way).
As a result of previous, goblin's "hidden" state is lost unless it's a skulker.
Goblin ducks back into the bushes and uses its movement to travel concealed to a new location.
Turn ends. The goblin can't take the hide action because it already used its action for the turn when it attacked.
Rest of round plays out; any attacks made against the goblin must do so against concealment, but it is not actually hidden yet.
New round, goblin's turn. It can now use its action to hide. But, of course, once it does that, it can't attack that round. It must wait until its next turn in the following round, although there may be some benefits to its reaction in the current round.


I think this is where the objection to "attack and hide in the same round" comes from. Now, a rogue can use its bonus action to hide via Cunning Action, so we would have this:


Rogue shoots its arrow from its hiding spot (either it just fires from the shrubbery or stands up, either way).
As a result of previous, rogue's "hidden" state is lost unless it's a skulker.
Rogue ducks back into the bushes and uses its movement to travel concealed to a new location.
The rogue can use its bonus action to hide.
Turn ends, etc.


I know Malifice doesn't like jack-in-the-box rogues, but I believe that is allowed by RAW and personally I think it makes a fun flavor distinction for the class. Or am I misinterpreting how Cunning Action works?

[NNescio]

The "starts its turn hidden" is a key thing here. Not that I think that's literally expected, but hiding is an action, right? So we have this:


Goblin shoots its arrow from its hiding spot (either it just fires from the shrubbery or stands up, either way).
As a result of previous, goblin's "hidden" state is lost unless it's a skulker.
Goblin ducks back into the bushes and uses its movement to travel concealed to a new location.
Turn ends. The goblin can't take the hide action because it already used its action for the turn when it attacked.
Rest of round plays out; any attacks made against the goblin must do so against concealment, but it is not actually hidden yet.
New round, goblin's turn. It can now use its action to hide. But, of course, once it does that, it can't attack that round. It must wait until its next turn in the following round, although there may be some benefits to its reaction in the current round.


I think this is where the objection to "attack and hide in the same round" comes from. Now, a rogue can use its bonus action to hide via Cunning Action, so we would have this:


Rogue shoots its arrow from its hiding spot (either it just fires from the shrubbery or stands up, either way).
As a result of previous, rogue's "hidden" state is lost unless it's a skulker.
Rogue ducks back into the bushes and uses its movement to travel concealed to a new location.
The rogue can use its bonus action to hide.
Turn ends, etc.


I know Malifice doesn't like jack-in-the-box rogues, but I believe that is allowed by RAW and personally I think it makes a fun flavor distinction for the class. Or am I misinterpreting how Cunning Action works?

The key issue here is that Goblins have the Nimble Escape trait, which allows them to Hide (or Disengage, but not Dash) as a bonus action.

[EggKookoo]

The key issue here is that Goblins have the Nimble Escape trait, which allows them to Hide (or Disengage, but not Dash) as a bonus action.

Oh, hey, look at that. :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

Oh, hey, look at that. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah - I object to jack in the box Goblins on the same grounds as I object to Jack in the box rogues!

Breaking LOS isn't enough for enabling a stealth check. I reckon it would just say it if that was the case. Hidden to me seems to imply more than just 'can't be seen'.

Caveat though - every DM is gonna vary here.

[Sigreid]

You know, I hadn't considered it before but I love that the one aspect of Tucker's kobolds that was very faintly cheating in 3.5 (moving, firing, and moving again) is now explicitly permitted by the rules.

First time I read about Tucker's Kobolds it was still AD&D 1st edition out. I don't recall there being any issue with splitting your move.

[Sigreid]

Yeah - I object to jack in the box Goblins on the same grounds as I object to Jack in the box rogues!

Breaking LOS isn't enough for enabling a stealth check. I reckon it would just say it if that was the case. Hidden to me seems to imply more than just 'can't be seen'.

Caveat though - every DM is gonna vary here.

What about them using part of their move to break sight, then making a hide check to move unseen to another location, provided there is sufficient cover to pull it off?

[EggKookoo]

What about them using part of their move to break sight, then making a hide check to move unseen to another location, provided there is sufficient cover to pull it off?

That's my question as well. If I have concealment and I still have movement left to me in the round, why can't I move to a new location and then use my bonus action to hide? What's the value of allowing a creature to take the hide action on its bonus if it can't make any effective use of its action?

[Hawkstar]

You know, I hadn't considered it before but I love that the one aspect of Tucker's kobolds that was very faintly cheating in 3.5 (moving, firing, and moving again) is now explicitly permitted by the rules.

It was outright cheating in 3.5. But Tucker's Kobolds weren't 3.5 material. They were AD&D material, and created the connection between Kobolds and cunning trapsmithing. Prior to Tucker, Kobolds were just easy kills for low-level players.


Breaking LOS isn't enough for enabling a stealth check.

You're right, it isn't. It requires having an action available to make the stealth check.

[Taejang]

Once a character is not under observation, it is not under observation. If you can't see or hear or otherwise observe a character, you cannot possibly rule it is under observation. You may know where it was when you saw it duck behind the bushes, and of course you can attack that spot, but you can't observe it, because you literally can't observe it. Ruling it is under close observation at that point is, I'm sorry, just stupid.

Of course, if you are actively paying attention to an enemy position, that should make it much harder for said enemy to hide. So the goblin pops up, shoots, and ducks down. The human fighter with an arrow jutting from his shield knows where the goblin was, and is watching the spot. He can't see the goblin, so the goblin is not under observation; the goblin's last known location is. By RAW and RAI, the goblin is not hidden at this point- if it moves normally, it would be easy for the observing fighter to know it moved and where. If it doesn't move, the fighter knows where it was and it is still there. Personally, to reflect the conditions now present, if the goblin attempts to hide I would give disadvantage on the stealth roll. But by RAW, once you can't observe a creature, it can't be under observation. It doesn't matter if the goblin went around a corner, is invisible, ducked behind a bush or into a foxhole, or teleported- it isn't under observation.

If the party doesn't want to deal with hiding goblins, the party can move out of bow range from the trees. Or burn the forest. Or hide themselves. Or use area spells that don't require precise targeting. Etc etc. If the DM thinks hiding in this fashion is too powerful, or gives the wrong flavor for their campaign, it is always within a DM's rights to modify existing rules.

TL;DR: RAW to me is very clear: if you can't observe it, it isn't under observation, and therefore can hide. Simultaneous actions mean the defenders should ready an action for when the goblin reveals itself; it does not mean they automatically get to attempt hitting it every round, even if thirty feet away and armed with a sword. The DM is free to change any of this at will and on a whim, but it would be a DM change, not RAW.

(Side note: Personally, I would give disadvantage on the stealth check to any character if its location is being watched. But I also rule in favor of the hiding character in another way. I've played enough paintball to know that being shot at does not mystically convey the location of the shooter to you; if they fire something like Scorching Ray, that's pretty obvious, but an arrow? If the goblin fired from concealment, I'd rule it is still hidden unless a character made a successful perception check against the goblin's stealth check, and disadvantage on the perception roll of anyone being shot at unless the player can convince me their character is calm under fire (most experienced PCs would be, but a low-level character may not). All of which is my own ruling, not RAW.)

[Anonymouswizard]

First time I read about Tucker's Kobolds it was still AD&D 1st edition out. I don't recall there being any issue with splitting your move.

I think that splitting your move should be standard. Why? I had this conversation when I wanted my air mage to move after her attack:
DM: you can't, you don't have move by action.
Me: so? I haven't moved yet, so I just use my action to go to [place I want to move to].
DM: you can't move after your attack without move by action.
Me: Mutants and Masterminds (note: this was 3e) uses the same action rules as D&D, I can take my move action.
DM: no, movement comes before your action, move by action lets you take half your move after it.
Me: :smallannoyed:

A character who didn't have MBA because she a) had 20 dodge and parry, b) was invulnerable to most physical attacks due to being in an air form, and c) was fast enough at flying that if I had MBA I would be close to invincible in buildings by hit and run.

Which reminds me, I want to do TK with PL4s in M&M and see how it works out.

[Taejang]

I think that splitting your move should be standard....
Which reminds me, I want to do TK with PL4s in M&M and see how it works out.
To the first part: I totally agree. To the second part: :confused:

[Tanarii]

That's my question as well. If I have concealment and I still have movement left to me in the round, why can't I move to a new location and then use my bonus action to hide? What's the value of allowing a creature to take the hide action on its bonus if it can't make any effective use of its action?
exactly. Malafice, it seem like you want to remove a key feature of Rogues (and certain monsters) because you personally don't like the way it plays out. Your explanatios make no sense in terms of game rules or simulation when you stretch them that far. Wouldn't it just be easier to remove the Cunning Action Feature, and similar moster features?


If you can't see or hear or otherwise observe a character, you cannot possibly rule it is under observation. You may know where it was when you saw it duck behind the bushes, and of course you can attack that spot, but you can't observe it, because you literally can't observe itSame place I'm getting lost. How can a creature be closely observed if you can't see it?

[Malifice]

Once a character is not under observation, it is not under observation. If you can't see or hear or otherwise observe a character, you cannot possibly rule it is under observation. You may know where it was when you saw it duck behind the bushes, and of course you can attack that spot, but you can't observe it, because you literally can't observe it. Ruling it is under close observation at that point is, I'm sorry, just stupid.

Of course, if you are actively paying attention to an enemy position, that should make it much harder for said enemy to hide. So the goblin pops up, shoots, and ducks down. The human fighter with an arrow jutting from his shield knows where the goblin was, and is watching the spot. He can't see the goblin, so the goblin is not under observation; the goblin's last known location is. By RAW and RAI, the goblin is not hidden at this point- if it moves normally, it would be easy for the observing fighter to know it moved and where. If it doesn't move, the fighter knows where it was and it is still there. Personally, to reflect the conditions now present, if the goblin attempts to hide I would give disadvantage on the stealth roll. But by RAW, once you can't observe a creature, it can't be under observation. It doesn't matter if the goblin went around a corner, is invisible, ducked behind a bush or into a foxhole, or teleported- it isn't under observation.

If the party doesn't want to deal with hiding goblins, the party can move out of bow range from the trees. Or burn the forest. Or hide themselves. Or use area spells that don't require precise targeting. Etc etc. If the DM thinks hiding in this fashion is too powerful, or gives the wrong flavor for their campaign, it is always within a DM's rights to modify existing rules.

TL;DR: RAW to me is very clear: if you can't observe it, it isn't under observation, and therefore can hide. Simultaneous actions mean the defenders should ready an action for when the goblin reveals itself; it does not mean they automatically get to attempt hitting it every round, even if thirty feet away and armed with a sword. The DM is free to change any of this at will and on a whim, but it would be a DM change, not RAW.

(Side note: Personally, I would give disadvantage on the stealth check to any character if its location is being watched. But I also rule in favor of the hiding character in another way. I've played enough paintball to know that being shot at does not mystically convey the location of the shooter to you; if they fire something like Scorching Ray, that's pretty obvious, but an arrow? If the goblin fired from concealment, I'd rule it is still hidden unless a character made a successful perception check against the goblin's stealth check, and disadvantage on the perception roll of anyone being shot at unless the player can convince me their character is calm under fire (most experienced PCs would be, but a low-level character may not). All of which is my own ruling, not RAW.)

Cool. But I disagree. If I see you enter your hiding spot, I have LOS to you when you attempt to hide.

[Sigreid]

Cool. But I disagree. If I see you enter your hiding spot, I have LOS to you when you attempt to hide.

So, in your campaign that means asymmetrical warfare isn't really a thing. Hit and hide tactics have been how weaker forces try to level the playing field for millennium.

[Malifice]

So, in your campaign that means asymmetrical warfare isn't really a thing. Hit and hide tactics have been how weaker forces try to level the playing field for millennium.

Huh? No it does work. You just need your opponent to not be watching you entering your hiding spot 'clearly enough'. If he watches you go into a box, you generally can't hide in that box.

Look - I don't want to get into this again. Play it how you want man.

[Taejang]

Cool. But I disagree. If I see you enter your hiding spot, I have LOS to you when you attempt to hide.

So, in your campaign that means asymmetrical warfare isn't really a thing. Hit and hide tactics have been how weaker forces try to level the playing field for millennium.
Hey, that's fine. I can say it isn't RAW, but only the designers can say that with any authority. It doesn't even matter if it is or isn't, since the DM decides rules anyway. Nobody can use the argument that reality is different, because even if you establish that it is (with examples of guerrilla warfare or real life experience in combat or whatever), D&D isn't real life, and it can't mirror real life and still be what it is.

I'd argue the heck out of it if I was in his game, but arguing online is a waste of time. I probably shouldn't have posted what I did, actually, but meh. I don't always follow my own advice like I should. :smallbiggrin:


Huh? No it does work. You just need your opponent to not be watching you entering your hiding spot 'clearly enough'. If he watches you go into a box, you generally can't hide in that box.
To clarify, I don't think anyone would argue that point with you. The difference of opinion is the size of the box; given a forest-sized box, it doesn't matter if he sees you go in, he still won't know where in the box you are. But as I said, the argument is pointless, as none of us have authority and are just arguing opinion to opinion, so I'll shut up now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hide as an action isn't automatic for anyone. The Nimble Escape does not mean that a hide check roll is automatically made. Still has to roll versus someone's perception. That seems to be where the "how does hide work" problem keeps getting wrapped around the axle.
The goblins in 5e have the "Nimble Escape" ability which lets them hide or disengage as a bonus action. The Goblin pops out of hiding, shoots an arrow, runs behind some trees and bushes and hides again. Next turn, he pops out somewhere else.
So OP was completely right to let them hide again.
Actually, it let's them make a hide attempt. If someone can see you, even slightly obscured, you don't get an automatic hide success, you have to make the roll, just as a Rogue does.

Goblins have it better (Hidden is better than pack tactics), but Goblins require a stealth check, and reveal themselves after attacking (hit or miss) meaning its easily negated with readied actions.

It's hard to distill from your description, but have you considered how much more it would have gone according to your preconceptions if you didn't allow hiding under observation? There may be a good reason why the rules say "you can't hide while being observed."

[smcmike]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "hidden." It seems to me that this has gotten into some overly legalistic analysis, some of which can be discarded in actual play by just talking it through. I'm aware that hiding is a defined term, but it really depends on the situation, right?

For example - a goblin pops up from behind a couch, shoots you, and ducks again. The couch is the only object in the room, you aren't distracted by anything else, and the lighting is good. The goblin then "hides," successfully. Is the goblin any more or less hidden if he takes the action on the turn he took the shot (as the rules say he can) or the next turn? Not really - in either case, you can't see the goblin, but you've got a pretty dang good idea where he is, right?

Now, if the goblin is behind a long parapet instead, and he atttacks, ducks, and moves along it, how can you know where he went without a successful perception check?

[Anonymouswizard]

To the first part: I totally agree. To the second part: :confused:

TK=Tucker's Kobolds, I'm using it as a shorthand to say 'use superior tactics to defeat a seemingly unbeatable enemy'.

They key thing with TK is that they used tactics to harry the PCs and used the terrain to their advantage. There are a few known ways to win against Tucker's Kobolds, the standard is I believe is to advance very carefully making sure you don't fall into their traps, and my favourite is the 'turn a few hundred Decanters of Endless Water upside down, pour water into dungeon'. The spirit of it is good though, to make insignificant enemies a challenge again.

[Taejang]

TK=Tucker's Kobolds, I'm using it as a shorthand to say 'use superior tactics to defeat a seemingly unbeatable enemy'.

They key thing with TK is that they used tactics to harry the PCs and used the terrain to their advantage. There are a few known ways to win against Tucker's Kobolds, the standard is I believe is to advance very carefully making sure you don't fall into their traps, and my favourite is the 'turn a few hundred Decanters of Endless Water upside down, pour water into dungeon'. The spirit of it is good though, to make insignificant enemies a challenge again.
Ah, gotcha. I'd probably use spells like Wall of Fire and Transmute Rock to kill 'em or make them accessible to melee characters. That's why every party should have a halfling: somebody has to fit in the little holes!

[MeeposFire]

First time I read about Tucker's Kobolds it was still AD&D 1st edition out. I don't recall there being any issue with splitting your move.

In AD&D you could move up to half your movement and get all of your attacks. This made it one of the more potentially mobile editions. Other more mobile editions are 4e and 5e which also allow movement and getting your attacks.

Basic+ D&D and 3e are the less mobile editions. In D&D if you move or attack (some monsters have a charge but not apparently PCs oddly not counting with a mounted lance). 3e would allow a move with attack but you would only get one attack rather than all (in general there were ways to get around this) which meant that if you moved more than 5 feet you lost a lot of your weapon power. These editions were less mobile particularly for weapon users.

In order for the move, attack, move option to be technically legal (without giving the kobold home brewed material) would be to give them the spring attack feat or shot on the run feats (which required more feats than standard kobolds could have).

[Ardantis]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "hidden." It seems to me that this has gotten into some overly legalistic analysis, some of which can be discarded in actual play by just talking it through. I'm aware that hiding is a defined term, but it really depends on the situation, right?

For example - a goblin pops up from behind a couch, shoots you, and ducks again. The couch is the only object in the room, you aren't distracted by anything else, and the lighting is good. The goblin then "hides," successfully. Is the goblin any more or less hidden if he takes the action on the turn he took the shot (as the rules say he can) or the next turn? Not really - in either case, you can't see the goblin, but you've got a pretty dang good idea where he is, right?

Now, if the goblin is behind a long parapet instead, and he atttacks, ducks, and moves along it, how can you know where he went without a successful perception check?

It seems to me as though hide is meant to be used as a combat maneuver for certain monsters and PC classes (Goblin, Rogue), usable per turn depending on the circumstances of terrain and battle.

The DM's role is not to forbid the use of the Hide, but rather determines the EXTENT to which hiding is viable in that particular circumstance.

Malifice said that he allows the Hide action after a round of being unobserved (out of sight) to account for the fact that the enemy combatants are surely aware of the individual who is out of sight for at least a turn. That individual may, with the appropriate ability, on the next turn, bonus action Hide then use their action to attack from hiding.

This makes it so that during the round following the attack, enemy combatants may chase the individual and find them without a Perception check. It favors bold gameplay.

I had adjudicated in my game that the goblins in the woods could, in one turn, attack from hiding AND THEN bonus action Hide. This ensured that against poor perception rolls, they were practically nonexistent between turns.

I can see now the value of Malifice's take on the use of the Hide action- a character who reveals himself by attacking perhaps ought to be potentially perceivable for a turn before he is able to hide again. It maintains the advantage of the bonus action Hide (and the concept of asymmetrical warfare), but keeps hiding characters responsible for things like character positioning and team tactics throughout the battle.

I just might try it in the next section: The Goblin Hideout!

I'm still scared of the Bugbear.

[1Forge]

Lol Your encounter reminds me of the game I'm DM'ing. I make things so hard for my players on purpose to discourage flat video game style combat and more critical thinking. This way they also get much more XP than they should. It can be very fun if done right.

i had them go to wipe out kobold slaves at levels 1 and 2, they laughed and tried to get out of it but in the end they agreed. These kobolds were highly trained soldiers and, cripples the barbarian, stabbed the rogue, heavily injured the ranger with his own arrows, and poisened most of the party. Later they killed a dukes son, froxe a wizards head, crippled the cleric, and smited the warlock (yes paladin kobolds) this started to get my players to think and be more prepared. They're transformation from video game nerds to paranoid murder hobos is not complete but it soon will be.

[Ardantis]

Lol Your encounter reminds me of the game I'm DM'ing. I make things so hard for my players on purpose to discourage flat video game style combat and more critical thinking. This way they also get much more XP than they should. It can be very fun if done right.

i had them go to wipe out kobold slaves at levels 1 and 2, they laughed and tried to get out of it but in the end they agreed. These kobolds were highly trained soldiers and, cripples the barbarian, stabbed the rogue, heavily injured the ranger with his own arrows, and poisened most of the party. Later they killed a dukes son, froxe a wizards head, crippled the cleric, and smited the warlock (yes paladin kobolds) this started to get my players to think and be more prepared. They're transformation from video game nerds to paranoid murder hobos is not complete but it soon will be.

Your game sounds AWESOME.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah - I object to jack in the box Goblins on the same grounds as I object to Jack in the box rogues!

Breaking LOS isn't enough for enabling a stealth check. I reckon it would just say it if that was the case. Hidden to me seems to imply more than just 'can't be seen'.

Caveat though - every DM is gonna vary here.

I'm returning to this because I'm genuinely interested in your position. What's the value of a feature that lets you attempt Hide on your Bonus if you can't then also use your Action as normal in the same round?

I understand you don't like jack-in-the-box but does that invalidate Cunning Action?

[JellyPooga]

I understand you don't like jack-in-the-box but does that invalidate Cunning Action?

Not at all. It lets you, for instance;

- Dash as an action to run up to 60ft to a valid hiding spot (e.g. into a maze of crates, a large fog bank or into a pool of water) and Hide as a bonus action.
OR
- Use Object (or cast a spell, if such is in your repertoire) as an action to create cover to Hide as a bonus action.

Not to mention the Dash or Disengage uses of Cunning Action, which are both extremely useful, tactically.

[KorvinStarmast]

In AD&D you could move up to half your movement and get all of your attacks. This made it one of the more potentially mobile editions. Other more mobile editions are 4e and 5e which also allow movement and getting your attacks.

Basic+ D&D and 3e are the less mobile editions. In D&D if you move or attack (some monsters have a charge but not apparently PCs oddly not counting with a mounted lance). 3e would allow a move with attack but you would only get one attack rather than all (in general there were ways to get around this) which meant that if you moved more than 5 feet you lost a lot of your weapon power. These editions were less mobile particularly for weapon users.

In order for the move, attack, move option to be technically legal (without giving the kobold home brewed material) would be to give them the spring attack feat or shot on the run feats (which required more feats than standard kobolds could have).

Original D&D allowed only elves to split move and fire, and that itself came from Chainmail originally.



For example - a goblin pops up from behind a couch, shoots you, and ducks again. The couch is the only object in the room, you aren't distracted by anything else, and the lighting is good. The goblin then "hides," successfully.
Goblin there is trying to take advantage of cover, in this case trying to use full cover. That is its own rule set.

[Taejang]

Not at all. It lets you, for instance;

- Dash as an action to run up to 60ft to a valid hiding spot (e.g. into a maze of crates, a large fog bank or into a pool of water) and Hide as a bonus action.
Actually, that goes against Malifice's description.

If you read my post closely above, I more or less do allow that - I just require the movement under cover and the Hide check to be made during the following round (combat being simultaneous despite the cyclical nature of how it is resolved) when the creature starts its turn in cover and is able to use that cover to move to a different spot where it's location cannot be reasonably inferred.

On a succesful Hide check, the other combatants no longer know where the creature is.
Unless I understood him wrong, his ruling is it is impossible to hide on the same turn you enter concealment. So you could dash 60 feet to a valid hiding spot, end your turn, and the next turn you could hide.

That still doesn't invalidate the hide function of Cunning Action, as the second turn would be 1) bonus action: hide, 2) action or movement while hidden. It functionally makes no difference in combat. Instead of attack, then move and hide, the turn becomes hide, then attack and move. The character still gets to attack each turn with the Hidden modifiers (assuming they succeed on their stealth checks), and in both situations the hiding character can still be attacked. The only difference between Malifice's method vs 'the other method' is the hiding character isn't considered hidden at the end of its turn, allowing anyone to attack it. With 'the other method', the character is hidden, requiring opposing characters to use reactions to attack it when it reveals itself during an attack.

Simplified, the 'other' method requires characters to negate stealth or use reactions. Malifice's method prevents stealthy characters from using stealth for protection, unless that is all they use it for. Neither method negates the usefulness of a bonus action hide.

[Crusher]

Actually, that goes against Malifice's description.

Unless I understood him wrong, his ruling is it is impossible to hide on the same turn you enter concealment. So you could dash 60 feet to a valid hiding spot, end your turn, and the next turn you could hide.

That still doesn't invalidate the hide function of Cunning Action, as the second turn would be 1) bonus action: hide, 2) action or movement while hidden. It functionally makes no difference in combat. Instead of attack, then move and hide, the turn becomes hide, then attack and move. The character still gets to attack each turn with the Hidden modifiers (assuming they succeed on their stealth checks), and in both situations the hiding character can still be attacked. The only difference between Malifice's method vs 'the other method' is the hiding character isn't considered hidden at the end of its turn, allowing anyone to attack it. With 'the other method', the character is hidden, requiring opposing characters to use reactions to attack it when it reveals itself during an attack.

Simplified, the 'other' method requires characters to negate stealth or use reactions. Malifice's method prevents stealthy characters from using stealth for protection, unless that is all they use it for. Neither method negates the usefulness of a bonus action hide.

Well said. And it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. Doing it on the same turn means you're attacking them, moving, and then hiding all while in theory the other person is doing stuff too, yet somehow you're able to effectively negate their ability to respond. Which does seem unfair. This prevents that while still making the Goblins' ability worthwhile.

I get that plenty of rogues love being able to step behind a pillar to break LoS, hide, and then nuke someone again, but it does feel like someone should have to do more than simply break LoS to hide. Yes, that's necessary, and it doesn't have to be a lot more than than that, but it does have to be a little more than that.

[JellyPooga]

Actually, that goes against Malifice's description.

I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but my understanding of Malifice's stance from reading earlier posts (possibly in other threads, at that) is that just breaking LoS by, for example, ducking behind a pillar is what's insufficient for a Hide check on the same turn. Going into sufficient cover as I described (maze of crates, extensive fog bank, etc.) would be ok, as would breaking LoS with insufficient cover (e.g. a pillar) and waiting until at least the next turn (as that would constitute sufficient time to create doubt as to your location).

I could be wrong though.

[EggKookoo]

Unless I understood him wrong, his ruling is it is impossible to hide on the same turn you enter concealment.

Clarification: It's impossible to hide on the same turn you enter concealment if you were being observed when you entered it. It sounds like a minor thing but if no one is observing you, you should be able to enter concealment and hide all in one turn.

[Taejang]

Well said. And it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. Doing it on the same turn means you're attacking them, moving, and then hiding all while in theory the other person is doing stuff too, yet somehow you're able to effectively negate their ability to respond. Which does seem unfair. This prevents that while still making the Goblins' ability worthwhile.

I get that plenty of rogues love being able to step behind a pillar to break LoS, hide, and then nuke someone again, but it does feel like someone should have to do more than simply break LoS to hide. Yes, that's necessary, and it doesn't have to be a lot more than than that, but it does have to be a little more than that.
You're right, it isn't unreasonable. I don't agree with the ruling, but it isn't unreasonable. The 'other' way doesn't really take away the opposing character's ability to respond, however; attacks of opportunity, reactions, and prepared actions all still apply. When fighting a goblin who likes to hide in the bushes, I would prepare an action to shoot him as soon as he pops up. Thus, it would require planning on my part, but most good tactics do.


I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but my understanding of Malifice's stance from reading earlier posts (possibly in other threads, at that) is that just breaking LoS by, for example, ducking behind a pillar is what's insufficient for a Hide check on the same turn. Going into sufficient cover as I described (maze of crates, extensive fog bank, etc.) would be ok, as would breaking LoS with insufficient cover (e.g. a pillar) and waiting until at least the next turn (as that would constitute sufficient time to create doubt as to your location).

I could be wrong though.
If that is correct, then I agree with Malifice more than I realized. However, the situation discussed earlier in the thread was that of goblins hiding in bushes and trees of a forest. While a pillar may let one break LoS but not provide ample opportunity for real hiding, a forest as described in LMoP does allow enough cover to actually move around.

As Malifice seems to have left the conversation, I like you hope we aren't misinterpreting his views.


Clarification: It's impossible to hide on the same turn you enter concealment if you were being observed when you entered it. It sounds like a minor thing but if no one is observing you, you should be able to enter concealment and hide all in one turn.
I stand corrected, that was a key part of Malifice's position on the matter.