Nothing to see here people, move along!

[BDRook]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members, succeed because his stealth score is insane, and get constant sneak attack against the monsters with very minimal effort.

My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

As a DM, how would you rule this? Make him switch up his hiding spot, or is he well within his right to do it that way?

[RulesJD]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members, succeed because his stealth score is insane, and get constant sneak attack against the monsters with very minimal effort.

My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

As a DM, how would you rule this? Make him switch up his hiding spot, or is he well within his right to do it that way?

1. Have an enemy rush up. Stealth isn't Invisibility. With an enemy adjacent to the creature he's trying to hide behind, you are easily able to say that warning is provided and so he won't qualify for "Unseen" attacker.

2. Generate Disadvantage for him somehow. Usually this means peppering in minimal enemy spell casters when dealing with ranged characters.

[AttilatheYeon]

It's a special ability of Lightfoots. If you wouldn't take away a Vhumans feet or an Elfs sleep immunity, why take away the halflngs hide ability?

If it becomes game breaking, remember, you can always target the player who the halfling is hiding behind. It makes since to do that if the halfling is sniping even. Enough of that and players will solve your problem for you by not allowing the halfling to hide behind them.

[PeteNutButter]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members, succeed because his stealth score is insane, and get constant sneak attack against the monsters with very minimal effort.

My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

As a DM, how would you rule this? Make him switch up his hiding spot, or is he well within his right to do it that way?

As has been mentioned several times, rogues are balanced around getting their sneak attack damage nearly every round in combat.

If not they come down to be just really bad fighters (in combat).

As for the hiding, it can be expected as it is a feature called out in the race. On the other hand as long as there is some type of cover on the battlefield, such as a post or a tree, any race of rogue can do this repeatedly.

If enemies are particularly annoyed with the rogue, they can ready an attack to smack him when he comes out. Attackers locations are always revealed when they attack.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

1. Have an enemy rush up. Stealth isn't Invisibility. With an enemy adjacent to the creature he's trying to hide behind, you are easily able to say that warning is provided and so he won't qualify for "Unseen" attacker.

2. Generate Disadvantage for him somehow. Usually this means peppering in minimal enemy spell casters when dealing with ranged characters.

No. Stealth creates a hidden condition, THAT LASTS until the creature takes an action to CHANGE that condition, or another creature succeeds a perception check.

An INVISIBLE CREATURE is not hidden, Period, unless they make a hide check.

It says so, right in the skills chapter.


Halfing hides. Halflings dies next round of some poison.

Halfling remains hidden.

corpse starts to smell

No one can find the smell.

NPC does not know the hidden rogue/monk/fighter is behind Joe. All the NPC knows is he ran behind joe. NPC can believe whatever he wants. Rogue drank a potion of fly & invisibility and is now in the clouds. Rogue teleported to Valhalla. Rogue melted into stone.

The only thing the NPC knows until he makes a successful a perception check is that he doesn't have any clue where the rogue is.

[Tanarii]

Are they far enough away that the enemy can't move to an angle of view so that he no longer has total cover/concealment behind the creature any more? That should be enough to reveal him.

Edit: Oops, guess not. You just need to be obscured by another creature. It doesn't need to be total cover/concealment. Which makes sense. You can already hide if you have total cover/concealment.

For reference, the ability reads:
Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.

Shows how often I play halflings that I don't have it memorized. :smallbiggrin:

[PeteNutButter]

No. Stealth creates a hidden condition, THAT LASTS until the creature takes an action to CHANGE that condition, or another creature succeeds a perception check.

An INVISIBLE CREATURE is not hidden, Period, unless they make a hide check.

It says so, right in the skills chapter.


Halfing hides. Halflings dies next round of some poison.

Halfling remains hidden.

corpse starts to smell

No one can find the smell.

NPC does not know the hidden rogue/monk/fighter is behind Joe. All the NPC knows is he ran behind joe. NPC can believe whatever he wants. Rogue drank a potion of fly & invisibility and is now in the clouds. Rogue teleported to Valhalla. Rogue melted into stone.

The only thing the NPC knows until he makes a successful a perception check is that he doesn't have any clue where the rogue is.

RAW is pretty clear you cannot hide without cover. "You can't hide from a creature that can clearly see you..." If the thing you are hiding behind is not in between you the one you are hiding from... how can you remain hidden?

H = Halfling; P = Party Member he is hiding behind; F = Foe.

If they are positioned like this:

H_| P_|__|__|__| F

the halfling can hide.

But if it is like this:


H_|P_|
__|__
F_|

there is no way he can hide. The foe is looking right at him.

[N810]

Have enemies attack the group from 2 opposite directions. :nale:

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

RAW is pretty clear you cannot hide without cover. "You can't hide from a creature that can clearly see you..." If the thing you are hiding behind is not in between you the one you are hiding from... how can you remain hidden?

H = Halfling; P = Party Member he is hiding behind; F = Foe.

If they are positioned like this:

H_| P_|__|__|__| F

the halfling can hide.

But if it is like this:


H_|P_|
__|__
F_|

there is no way he can hide. The foe is looking right at him.

No, the rules as written say that IF YOU APPROACH someone who can clearly see you, they most likely see you.

It does not say "If they walk over to you"
Or "If thing that allowed you to make the hide check goes away"


example: You don't need to hide in darkness. Because they can not see you in the first place.

IF you take the time to hide in the darkness, it is obviously to obscure your location should the darkness go away. Maybe you put yourself under a box. Or an umbrella.
Maybe you just keep running around the tree to keep it between you and them, so they never see you.


I really want to play hide and seek with people who think hiding does not work IN REAL LIFE, the exact same way as it does in 5E. It would be just like playing with my 2 and 3 year old, only I suspect you would actually count all the way to 10.

Do you know why people crash their cars into school buses? They almost, to a man, say "I didn't see it". Someone actively (or at least passively) rolling perception for a large, yellow object, with flashing lights, and bam, roll a 1.

[RulesJD]

No, the rules as written say that IF YOU APPROACH someone who can clearly see you, they most likely see you.

It does not say "If they walk over to you"
Or "If thing that allowed you to make the hide check goes away"


example: You don't need to hide in darkness. Because they can not see you in the first place.

IF you take the time to hide in the darkness, it is obviously to obscure your location should the darkness go away. Maybe you put yourself under a box. Or an umbrella.
Maybe you just keep running around the tree to keep it between you and them, so they never see you.


I really want to play hide and seek with people who think hiding does not work IN REAL LIFE, the exact same way as it does in 5E. It would be just like playing with my 2 and 3 year old, only I suspect you would actually count all the way to 10.

E for Effort, but you are massively and completely WRONG. I really, really wish this premise of Stealth = Invisibility would die already. It's just easier to admit you are wrong and move along.

Besides the fact that RAW is 100% clear and is RAI, there's even MORE RAW per PHB errata:

"Hiding (p. 177). The text clarifies that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, and the first sentence of the second paragraph starts as follows: “You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata.pdf

[Mellack]

To the OP:
Yes, they can do stealth behind someone repeatedly.

Yes, they are expected to do sneak damage basically every round. It is what rogues are balanced for.

[BeefGood]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members

Just to confirm--this sneak attack is with a ranged weapon, right? Because if the rogue jumped out from behind the party member and rushed up to the monster to do a melee attack, he would no longer be hidden.
If the above is correct, then I wonder if the monster should be granted cover. The party member is between the rogue and the targeted monster. He happens to be closer to the rogue than to the monster, but he's still in between.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

E for Effort, but you are massively and completely WRONG. I really, really wish this premise of Stealth = Invisibility would die already. It's just easier to admit you are wrong and move along.

Besides the fact that RAW is 100% clear and is RAI, there's even MORE RAW per PHB errata:

"Hiding (p. 177). The text clarifies that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, and the first sentence of the second paragraph starts as follows: “You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata.pdf


I am not wrong. I simply understand English.

You can't see the rogue because he ran into another room

Rogue hides.

Rogue now have a hidden condition.

You walk into the room.

Rogue is still hidden, you have to find him.


Invisible creatures are pretty easy to perceive. The spell makes that very clear. That is why to not be perceived, someone who is invisible MUST make a hide check. Stealth > invisibility.
Because Sealth


Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you
attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past
guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on
someone without being seen or heard.

Hiding
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.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you
make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position. *Thus, in the OP example, he needs someone to hide behind to MAKE the check. No to stand there forever, as is MADE CLEAR in the first paragraph.


An invisible creature can’t
be seen, so it can always try to hide. *Thus Hide > invisible

Signs of its passage
might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.

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. *This sentence makes it clear that IF you do not come out of hiding, it does not see you. You remained hidden until you take an action to change the hidden condition, OR they make a successful perception check

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.


Right out of the players handbook. Page 177

[BDRook]

I wonder if the monster should be granted cover. The party member is between the rogue and the targeted monster. He happens to be closer to the rogue than to the monster, but he's still in between.

This would be true if you couldn't move between your attacks, but since you can he runs out 10 feet, shoots, then runs 10 feet back into hiding and stealth's as a bonus action.

[TheProfessor85]

I'd make the target of he's attacking assume the attack came from the person he hid behind. After a couple encounters they won't want to be used as cover

[RulesJD]

I am not wrong. I simply understand English.

You can't see the rogue because he ran into another room

Rogue hides.

Rogue now have a hidden condition.

You walk into the room.

Rogue is still hidden, you have to find him.


Invisible creatures are pretty easy to perceive. The spell makes that very clear. That is why to not be perceived, someone who is invisible MUST make a hide check. Stealth > invisibility.
Because Sealth


Stealth. Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you
attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past
guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on
someone without being seen or heard.

Hiding
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.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you
make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position. *Thus, in the OP example, he needs someone to hide behind to MAKE the check. No to stand there forever, as is MADE CLEAR in the first paragraph.


An invisible creature can’t
be seen, so it can always try to hide. *Thus Hide > invisible

Signs of its passage
might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.

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. *This sentence makes it clear that IF you do not come out of hiding, it does not see you. You remained hidden until you take an action to change the hidden condition, OR they make a successful perception check

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.


Right out of the players handbook. Page 177

ANNNNNNNNNNND wrong.

1. Rogue runs into room that is simply walls and floors with absolutely 0 furniture, obstructions, etc. and takes the "Hide" action. Rogue is considered Hidden at the end of Rogue's turn and could get Advantage from the Unseen Attacker rule.

2. Enemy saw Rogue run into the room and runs in after them.

3. Enemy now has NO OBSTRUCTIONS between it and the view of the Rogue. Rogue is no longer "Hidden" without the need to search because the Enemy can see the Rogue. JUST LIKE I SAID IN THE PHB ERRATA. Rogue is no longer an Unseen Attacker and cannot gain Advantage.


Seriously, just admit you're wrong and move on.

[ClintACK]

As has been mentioned several times, rogues are balanced around getting their sneak attack damage nearly every round in combat.

This.

It's definitely not a balance issue to let the rogue get his SA every round.

But if you need some logic to explain it:
My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

It's not that the target is surprised *that* the Rogue jumps out and plinks him with an arrow (that would be surprise -- which would let the Assassin get an automatic critical), it's just that with the Rogue hiding behind his ally the target is surprised by exactly *when* the Rogue jumps out and plinks him with an arrow.

If you can watch the archer draw back his bow and take aim -- even out of the corner of your eye -- you have some warning that you're about to be shot. If you can't see the archer (because he's hidden, or invisible, or in a magical field of darkness) he gets advantage on his attack against you, because you're less able to dodge without that warning.

[PeteNutButter]

It's not that the target is surprised *that* the Rogue jumps out and plinks him with an arrow (that would be surprise -- which would let the Assassin get an automatic critical), it's just that with the Rogue hiding behind his ally the target is surprised by exactly *when* the Rogue jumps out and plinks him with an arrow.

If you can watch the archer draw back his bow and take aim -- even out of the corner of your eye -- you have some warning that you're about to be shot. If you can't see the archer (because he's hidden, or invisible, or in a magical field of darkness) he gets advantage on his attack against you, because you're less able to dodge without that warning.

So basically the rogue is a jack-in-the-box... You know it's coming but you don't know whe--BAHHH--it got me again.

[RulesJD]

I've decided to make you even more wrong.


PHB Page 195 - Unseen Attackers and Targets

"When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it."

PHB Page 192 - Hide Section:

"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding. lf you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter.

PHB Page 177 - Chapter 7 - Rules for Hiding:

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. You can't hide from a creature that can see you...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.



Your continued mistake is that you are treating Hiding as if the player suddenly turned Invisible and wasn't moving.

That is WRONG. Once an enemy has an unobstructed view AND CAN SEE YOU, you no longer benefit from the Unseen Attacker section, and thus you don't have Advantage.

Complain about it all you want, RAW and RAI are clear as the Rogue of your's standing in a flat, featureless room as an enemy walks in. If it makes you feel better, you are welcome to consider yourself as still in the "Hide" function because your reading implies that. Thankful, the "Unseen Attacker" section doesn't care because it says you don't gain advantage when a creature can see you.

Admit you're wrong, and move on. I've had to do it before, it's what helps you learn.

[Sir cryosin]

This like when your chasing someone around a table. You don't know which they'll go. A halfling hiding behind someone in combat and getting a sneak attack off. The way I see it the enemy may know. The halfling is there but he might be distracted with other things and don't know when. The halfling might attack.

[RickAllison]

This would be true if you couldn't move between your attacks, but since you can he runs out 10 feet, shoots, then runs 10 feet back into hiding and stealth's as a bonus action.

Then he steps out and is in plain sight! He is no longer hidden because he just stepped out into plain sight when the enemy has been attacked from that direction.

I let the rogues continually Hide in combat, but trying to Hide in a spot that the enemies are already focusing on is a lesson in futility. It goes like this:

1) Enemies ambush, everything is in confusion and there isn't any great focus.
2) Halfling attacks, then hides behind an ally successfully
3) Halfling attacks from his hidey-hole, enemy now is aware of his threat, he tries to hide in the same spot
4a) Halfling tries to fire again, but the enemy is wise to his antics and so the rogue doesn't get advantage
4b) Halfling sees the enemy looking at him, so he just shoots a different guy, getting advantage
5) Halfling drops a smoke bomb (he is a Thief, apparently) and ducks behind a separate wall
6) Halfling Hides behind wall, pops out and can shoot everyone because the enemies have lost him

I base this heavily off of the Splinter Cell games. A rogue can continually Hide in the same spot if no one knows to look there, but being made at a location means the enemies are already paying attention and will see your crossbow poking around the corner. Now what happens when the enemies approach the made position and you've circled around after Hiding behind a wall, well, pincushions are fun! They can Hide all day long, they just need to make sure they don't try attacking people who have seen them go behind that wall...

[Socratov]

I've decided to make you even more wrong.


PHB Page 195 - Unseen Attackers and Targets

"When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it."

PHB Page 192 - Hide Section:

"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding. lf you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section later in this chapter.

PHB Page 177 - Chapter 7 - Rules for Hiding:

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. You can't hide from a creature that can see you...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.



Your continued mistake is that you are treating Hiding as if the player suddenly turned Invisible and wasn't moving.

That is WRONG. Once an enemy has an unobstructed view AND CAN SEE YOU, you no longer benefit from the Unseen Attacker section, and thus you don't have Advantage.

Complain about it all you want, RAW and RAI are clear as the Rogue of your's standing in a flat, featureless room as an enemy walks in. If it makes you feel better, you are welcome to consider yourself as still in the "Hide" function because your reading implies that. Thankful, the "Unseen Attacker" section doesn't care because it says you don't gain advantage when a creature can see you.

Admit you're wrong, and move on. I've had to do it before, it's what helps you learn.

Ok, step one: the race explicitly states that you can use medium or bigger creatures to hide behind. while the ability doesn't explicityly calls out cover, we may assume that they mean exactly that in regards to hiding. Once you can take the hide action (which is explicitly allowed by the racial ability), you become hidden from someone as long as your stealth roll (or score) is not met by the opponent's perception roll (or score).

Now what you are basically doing is playing peek-a-boo: you use the meaty wall of your partymate, and once a round attack with your shortbow and rehide behind your meaty wall of friendship.

Now a savvy enemy might deduce where those pins come from and think you hide behind your mate. However, knwing hwere you are is not the same as seeing you as you still (unless he suddenly beats your stealth check) are hidden.

Sure, if your pal moves away and generates direct Line of sight between you and your intended pin cushion, you are, as they say in Guy Ritchie's movies, right properly f*****. Now as long as there is no direct line of sight between the enemy and you (more importantly, as long as the nice bloke you are hiding behind is willig to block the enemy's point of view, you stay hidden and benefit from the unseen attacker rules as described in your precious chapter 7.

Oh, and RulesJD, while I have your attention, would you please do me a favour and stop using megafonts? Please? It reads quite annoyingly as it is the reading equivalent of someone standing next to me while screaming at the top of his/her lungs with a megaphone held right to my ear. I would appreciate it if you would consider my request. Thank you.

[RulesJD]

Ok, step one: the race explicitly states that you can use medium or bigger creatures to hide behind. while the ability doesn't explicityly calls out cover, we may assume that they mean exactly that in regards to hiding. Once you can take the hide action (which is explicitly allowed by the racial ability), you become hidden from someone as long as your stealth roll (or score) is not met by the opponent's perception roll (or score).

Now what you are basically doing is playing peek-a-boo: you use the meaty wall of your partymate, and once a round attack with your shortbow and rehide behind your meaty wall of friendship.

Now a savvy enemy might deduce where those pins come from and think you hide behind your mate. However, knwing hwere you are is not the same as seeing you as you still (unless he suddenly beats your stealth check) are hidden.

Sure, if your pal moves away and generates direct Line of sight between you and your intended pin cushion, you are, as they say in Guy Ritchie's movies, right properly f*****. Now as long as there is no direct line of sight between the enemy and you (more importantly, as long as the nice bloke you are hiding behind is willig to block the enemy's point of view, you stay hidden and benefit from the unseen attacker rules as described in your precious chapter 7.

*snip*

I'm not sure where you thought I disagreed with your description, but for the record, I completely agree with everything you said. If the enemies don't try to establish a direct Line of Sight, then yup, it absolutely works how you described for a Lightfoot Halfling Rogue.

But that's exactly the problem the OP was having with one of his players doing that all the time. I'm not saying I would care as a DM, but given the advice that the DM was seeking, I described how to prevent that by doing exactly what you said, sending someone to establish a direct LoS.


Also, I use big font when a poster has clearly established that they aren't actually reading the pertinent points of a post. Makes it impossible for them to miss and (hopefully) saves everyone the trouble of the pointless conversation continuing. I'll drop them down a notch or two, I think the max font size is a bit much.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

ANNNNNNNNNNND wrong.

1. Rogue runs into room that is simply walls and floors with absolutely 0 furniture, obstructions, etc. and takes the "Hide" action. Rogue is considered Hidden at the end of Rogue's turn and could get Advantage from the Unseen Attacker rule.

2. Enemy saw Rogue run into the room and runs in after them.

3. Enemy now has NO OBSTRUCTIONS between it and the view of the Rogue. Rogue is no longer "Hidden" without the need to search because the Enemy can see the Rogue. JUST LIKE I SAID IN THE PHB ERRATA. Rogue is no longer an Unseen Attacker and cannot gain Advantage.


Seriously, just admit you're wrong and move on.

No. You are confusing unseen, with being hidden. Someone who is invisible, or standing well outside of the light of a camp fire his not hidden. They are unseen.

Likewise, Unless the NPC is a beholder (which would have say, advantage in this situation) the fact that there is nothing in the room does not mean someone who is hidden is clearly spotted.

For example. NPC walks into a room.

Hidden rogue steps behind NPC, or drops from the ceiling. A humanoid only has a 180 (max) field of vision. As the confusing NPC turns around, the stealthy rogue continues to stay behind his head, and out of sight.

This is represented, in a turn based game, by the rogues opposed stealth checks, vs the NPCs perception checks to (hear or see) the rogue.

The annoying large fount you have made means nothing, because no one is disagreeing on that point. You can not hide unless you have cover or concealment. a medium creature grants a lightfoot halfling concealment. Thus they could make a hide check. They remain hidden until spotted, exactly as the rules say, just as creature who was visible, can be made invisible, AND THEN make a hide check.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I'm not sure where you thought I disagreed with your description, but for the record, I completely agree with everything you said. If the enemies don't try to establish a direct Line of Sight, then yup, it absolutely works how you described for a Lightfoot Halfling Rogue.

But that's exactly the problem the OP was having with one of his players doing that all the time. I'm not saying I would care as a DM, but given the advice that the DM was seeking, I described how to prevent that by doing exactly what you said, sending someone to establish a direct LoS.


Also, I use big font when a poster has clearly established that they aren't actually reading the pertinent points of a post. Makes it impossible for them to miss and (hopefully) saves everyone the trouble of the pointless conversation continuing. I'll drop them down a notch or two, I think the max font size is a bit much.

IF you had multiple NPCS, you could ensure that the halfling could not break LOS from all of them. He could however, still hide from some of them. This is not however, what you were saying.

[Erys]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members, succeed because his stealth score is insane, and get constant sneak attack against the monsters with very minimal effort.

My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

As a DM, how would you rule this? Make him switch up his hiding spot, or is he well within his right to do it that way?

Yes he can do this, and really... sneak attack is the rogue's bread and butter, if he wasn't doing this he would be bad, and wrong.

As a DM there is plenty you can do to mitigate this; AoE's for example.

The thing to consider, imho, is when you take those extra steps to trip up the rogue and when you don't. If your main "thing" is constantly being mitigated away, the game becomes dull very fast.

[mephnick]

Hidden rogue steps behind NPC, or drops from the ceiling. A humanoid only has a 180 (max) field of vision. As the confusing NPC turns around, the stealthy rogue continues to stay behind his head, and out of sight.

There is no facing in 5e. It's clearly stated in the rules that creatures are assumed to be looking all around them enough during any given round to prevent this, assuming they know a threat is in the vicinity. If not, then surprise rules take over which still don't allow you to approach an opponent unseen in clear line of sight.

[MrStabby]

There are two bits of the rules (related) that don't make sense to me.

One is hiding. There is no consistent way to interpret the rules that one way or another doesn't give stupid results that don't make sense in edge cases (the other is the darkness and illumination rules but at least basic physics can do something to help with that).

It's probably a bit late now as someone has chosen a class/build with assumptions about hiding but in future games I would work out some house rules that suit you.

For what it's worth I rule (and to be clear this is total house rule) that advantage comes from not knowing where an enemy is - to within 15ft. So hiding behind someone prevents you being seen and targeted but shooting out will not give advantage if you are within 15ft of where an enemy thinks you are. Stealth is about being quiet - but doesn't turn you invisible, if you are in the open in someones field of view they can see you. If you are invisible then they can't see you but you need to be quiet to have them not roughly know your location (and in combat with the clamour of battle there would be advantage to that stealth roll). Sneaking about is fine but you actually need shadows or something to sneak behind to get to exactly where you want to be. In practice this barely ever means that the rogue cannot sneak attack, but it does sometimes mean that they find themselves in a less than perfect position as they keep having to find obscurement in a fight.

Now it makes for some more interesting scenarios, the PCs have to chose their approach to defences more carefully. They have to plot approaches and use fog spells etc. to maximise sneak attack and advantage. On the other hand I also ask for a lot of skill checks, so the rogues skills are a major bonus so the class is certainly neither weak nor unpopular.

[PeteNutButter]

Just to pile onto this fire, what happens if an opponent attacks the halfling anyways. RAW he can totally "guess" a targets location and attack it. The foe can guess pretty well if the halfling is standing in the shadow of his buddy.

So the foe just attacks with disadvantage? with the halfling getting possible cover bonus AC? Or can the foe not do that because the halfling is "hidden"?

[mephnick]

So the foe just attacks with disadvantage? with the halfling getting possible cover bonus AC? Or can the foe not do that because the halfling is "hidden"?

Attack the square with disadvantage, cover bonuses apply for ranged combat.

*If the attacker moves to be adjacent/line of sight to the halfling then the cover no longer applies and the halfling is no longer hidden.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

There is no facing in 5e. It's clearly stated in the rules that creatures are assumed to be looking all around them enough during any given round to prevent this, assuming they know a threat is in the vicinity. If not, then surprise rules take over which still don't allow you to approach an opponent unseen in clear line of sight.

Correct. There is no facing, which is why my point is even more valid, there is no need to get / stay behind a person.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Attack the square with disadvantage, cover bonuses apply for ranged combat.

*If the attacker moves to be adjacent/line of sight to the halfling then the cover no longer applies and the halfling is no longer hidden. *IF the attack hits & the halfling can't keep his mouth shut. *

[Vogonjeltz]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members, succeed because his stealth score is insane, and get constant sneak attack against the monsters with very minimal effort.

My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

As a DM, how would you rule this? Make him switch up his hiding spot, or is he well within his right to do it that way?

It's not surprise, that can only happen in the first round of combat.

The advantage is because the halfling would be an unseen attacker.

The rules for hiding (phb 177 sidebar) do mention "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."

So, in the correct circumstances (i.e. at least something to obscure the approach, or if the halfling made an effort to hide and circle around their enemy to a flank; I know facing isn't a default thing, but I'd take it into account at least descriptively for this kind of scenario where the player wants to avoid being seen) it's possible. I'd say the halfling could definitely get the bonus for unseen attacker on ranged attacks by hiding behind other characters (friends OR enemies) and then attacking a character who could not see them when they hid.

i.e. A B C (if the halfling is A they could use B to be obscured from C, hide, then pop out for a sneak attack against C. B would of course, never be hidden from, but it wouldn't matter if the target of the attack was C).

[Gwendol]

Lightfoot halflings and wood elves have been granted HiPS (Hide in Plain Sight) in this edition. To deny them that ability would be unfair, however as other have noted, it is perfectly alright for enemies to guess the position of the rogue and attack an unseen opponent, or use an area attack, or bring down the cover, or try to position themselves in such a way as to break concealment in order to hurt the rogue.

[90sMusic]

As has been mentioned several times, rogues are balanced around getting their sneak attack damage nearly every round in combat.

If not they come down to be just really bad fighters (in combat).

As for the hiding, it can be expected as it is a feature called out in the race. On the other hand as long as there is some type of cover on the battlefield, such as a post or a tree, any race of rogue can do this repeatedly.

If enemies are particularly annoyed with the rogue, they can ready an attack to smack him when he comes out. Attackers locations are always revealed when they attack.

^
This. A thousand times this. Without sneak attack, rogues are pure garbage. They NEED to get that sneak attack every round to contribute anything to damage. They are balanced around the fact they will get that sneak attack every round as it is outrageously easy to do. Even without hiding every round, any adjacent ally would grant it or any form of advantage would still grant it like from faerie fire or whatever else. It's nearly impossible to not get the sneak attack bonus damage unless you have a DM (like you) who is intentionally trying to screw over their players.

Do you think up ways to make a fighter in your party only get 1 attack instead of all 3 (at level 11)? Do you make every single enemy resistant to all magic and spells and have crazy high saves to screw over the casters in the party?

That is what you are doing to the rogue by trying to break his class. Sneak attack every round is fine, balanced, and expected. Only under certain circumstances would he not be able to do it.

Not sure why everyone goes absolutely insane over the lightfoot halfling racial. it's no different than hiding behind a rock or a wall every turn and doing the exact same thing, they just get away with hiding behind people because they are so small.

[MrStabby]

^
This. A thousand times this. Without sneak attack, rogues are pure garbage. They NEED to get that sneak attack every round to contribute anything to damage. They are balanced around the fact they will get that sneak attack every round as it is outrageously easy to do. Even without hiding every round, any adjacent ally would grant it or any form of advantage would still grant it like from faerie fire or whatever else. It's nearly impossible to not get the sneak attack bonus damage unless you have a DM (like you) who is intentionally trying to screw over their players.

Being eligible for sneak attack most rounds is needed to balance the rogue. I would estimate about 70-80% of the time is about the break-even point (depending somewhat on the encounter). However this is not the same as advantage and can be provided by an ally being adjacent to one of your enemies.

Perma-hide with no restrictions does more than allow sneak attack, it increases the chance to hit and nearly doubles the chance of a critical hit.

[Gwendol]

Not sure why everyone goes absolutely insane over the lightfoot halfling racial. it's no different than hiding behind a rock or a wall every turn and doing the exact same thing, they just get away with hiding behind people because they are so small.

Except it is. From the PHB:
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you which is further clarified in the errata:
“You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”

Lightfoot halflings and Wild elves have an ability that allows them to disregard the quoted rules text above.

[90sMusic]

Being eligible for sneak attack most rounds is needed to balance the rogue. I would estimate about 70-80% of the time is about the break-even point (depending somewhat on the encounter). However this is not the same as advantage and can be provided by an ally being adjacent to one of your enemies.

Perma-hide with no restrictions does more than allow sneak attack, it increases the chance to hit and nearly doubles the chance of a critical hit.

Again, unless you are in a single large room with absolutely no pillars, columns, walls, objects, or anything else, you're going to be able to hide as a bonus every turn regardless. Most dungeons don't lock you in a single room during a fight, there's always walls to hide behind. If you do somehow get locked in a room, there are usually pillars, statues, or any number of other large things you can easily hide behind. Even in the forest you can hide behind trees or in bushes.

It isn't hard to do in the first place. Halflings just happen to be able to do it next to an ally instead of requiring those things, but that and Lucky are the only advantages to playing a halfling. Compare that to something like half elf where you get an extra language, darkvision, 2 extra skills, advantage against charm, impossible to be put to sleep, etc.

Halflings lack a lot of the ability other races tend to have, this and Lucky are all they have going for them.

Use AOE attacks to hit the person they're hiding behind and them at the same time. Charm them or the person they're hiding behind. Or, if you are so worried about your NPCs acting "dumb", then don't let them be dumb. Be strategic. READY AN ACTION.

You can ready an action to attack someone the instant the reveal themselves. You can pop that halfling between the eyes with an arrow or spell right as they attack and reveal themselves during their turn before they have a chance to hide again as a bonus.

NPCs are only dumb if you make them dumb. Use the tools you have available to deal with this situation within the rules of the game. Don't try to break a racial ability called NATURALLY STEALTHY because you think it makes them too stealthy, give me a break.

[90sMusic]

Except it is. From the PHB: which is further clarified in the errata:

Lightfoot halflings and Wild elves have an ability that allows them to disregard the quoted rules text above.

You act like you're arguing with me... But then you are agreeing with me...? I don't understand. I'm aware the rules are a little different for them because of their racial.

My point with it being the same thing is simply saying it's incredibly easy to hide every turn anyway. Anyone who has ever played an archer-based rogue can tell you this. There is no shortage of things to hide behind to get that same advantage every turn. It's very rare to have nothing to hide behind and no way to hide, and only in those very very few circumstances would the halfling "perk" even come into play.

[Gwendol]

I'm not sure, but you seem to think that as long there is cover any rogue can hide in combat. That is not true unless the rogue also can gain concealment, because of the "can't hide unless not seen clearly" clause.

If an enemy can see you run behind cover you can't hide, unless you are a halfling or wood elf under those specific circumstances.

[Plaguescarred]

Correct. There is no facing, which is why my point is even more valid, there is no need to get / stay behind a person.Well there is a need in order to establish who is or isn't behind cover or concealment –be it a creature or obstacle– and this doesn't rely on facing but on positioning between themselves.

[Socratov]

I'm not sure, but you seem to think that as long there is cover any rogue can hide in combat. That is not true unless the rogue also can gain concealment, because of the "can't hide unless not seen clearly" clause.

If an enemy can see you run behind cover you can't hide, unless you are a halfling or wood elf under those specific circumstances.

the rules for cover mention that you are obscured when you have total cover. When you have total cover the enemy cannot see you. That means you can hide. It will know where you are, but that does not mean he can see you.

It's the use of invisibility: you may know where someone, who is invisible, is, but unless you overcome their stealth check to pinpoint their position, cover them in glitter, or what-not, you still cannot see them and thus attack with disadvantage or get attacked with advantage.

[Gwendol]

Correct, but anything below total cover is DM approval dependent, and the errata further enforces the DM call on the conditions for hiding.

[90sMusic]

I'm not sure, but you seem to think that as long there is cover any rogue can hide in combat. That is not true unless the rogue also can gain concealment, because of the "can't hide unless not seen clearly" clause.

If an enemy can see you run behind cover you can't hide, unless you are a halfling or wood elf under those specific circumstances.

All you need to hide is to break line of sight and not be seen.

You think a solid WALL cannot break line of sight? Unless the enemies have superman x-ray vision, they can't see you and you can hide.

The same is true for any number of objects and obstacles around a battlefield. Thick trees, especially those more than 5 feet in diameter are easily hidden behind. It only takes a 2 foot diameter tree to realistically hide, but once they get 5 feet or more, no one can even attempt to argue you can't hide behind that. Most statue bases are more than 5 feet as well, just duck behind that. Hiding in combat is easy as pie. Pillars holding up the roof of a building are also very large. Due to the nature of D&D maps, they tend to be either 5 foot in diameter or 10 foot in diameter, both easy to hide behind.

Stop and THINK for a second. Most people are between 5 and 6 feet TALL. Imagine being behind an object as wide as the average person is tall. Think about that for a minute, just how big that is and how easy something of that size is to hide behind. If you stand side-face, most people are less than 2 feet wide from that angle. And rogues are experts at hiding, it's literally what they do for a living. You could hide a dozen people behind a small wall 5 feet long as long as you're on the opposite side of who is looking.

Hiding is not very difficult, it's why games like hide and seek are popular because even kids can do it very well lol. And when you have a rogue that has spent a career evading enemies, hiding from people, and so on, and has expertise in their stealth, to even attempt to argue they can't hide behind an object that is clearly larger than their body is ludicrous.

Also consider what you are saying. You are saying that in order to HIDE as an action, or bonus action, you have to already not be seen at all. Do you know how dumb that sounds? If they already can't see you, what is the point in hiding? That is why hiding exists as a skill and you leave it up to the dice, so when you attempt to hide in those thick bushes or behind that statue or behind that large chest or under the desk or whatever else, you leave it up to the dice because that roll determines how well you hid yourself in those circumstances. If you are behind a solid wall and required to be behind a solid wall every time you hide, it wouldn't exist as a skill because it's pointless to hide from people who already can't see you.

Yeesh. I can't even tell you how many countless times i've been in a campaign where people were hiding in bushes spying on a camp of enemies checking it out before we attacked. Or had bandits or orcs hiding up in the trees to ambush people on the road. Or just behind a large rock out on the field. I can only imagine playing in a world where you were in charge and all of those people would be obviously seen by everyone because they weren't behind solid walls. :P

[Plaguescarred]

Yeah it's not cover that enables you to hide, it's being not seen clearly be it from invisibility, heavy obscurement, blindness etc...

A clear wall of force shouldn't allow you to hide for exemple, even though it provide full cover.

[Tanarii]

If you really don't like pop-up hiding, there's a simple house-rule fix: If you have to reveal yourself to make the attack (ie pop-up) then you don't get advantage.

Is this a massive nerf? Yes. But does it stop pop-up attacks, while still allowing sudden attacks / ambushes from 'the shadows' or invisibility to gain advantage? Yep.

Really it boils down to, as a DM how do you want hiding to work? Do you want a creature to be able to 'hide' even when the enemy absolutely must know where they are? I don't personally like that. But I ignore it because the majority of the time, functionally there's no difference between 'hiding in this 5ft square which is the only possible place you could be hidden and the enemy knows it' and 'standing in this 5ft square'. And the few edge cases where it does matter typically involve magic.

(Edit: sorry to be clear, the majority of the time defensively there is no difference. Obviously offensively it makes a huge difference, hence the thread.)


Correct, but anything below total cover is DM approval dependent, and the errata further enforces the DM call on the conditions for hiding.dont think anyone was implying that less than total cover was needed. Certainly DM judgement on if things like trees, boxes/crates, pillars/columns, sarcophagi are really big enough to completely stop the creature from being seen.

[RulesJD]

No. You are confusing unseen, with being hidden. Someone who is invisible, or standing well outside of the light of a camp fire his not hidden. They are unseen.

Likewise, Unless the NPC is a beholder (which would have say, advantage in this situation) the fact that there is nothing in the room does not mean someone who is hidden is clearly spotted.

For example. NPC walks into a room.

Hidden rogue steps behind NPC, or drops from the ceiling. A humanoid only has a 180 (max) field of vision. As the confusing NPC turns around, the stealthy rogue continues to stay behind his head, and out of sight.

This is represented, in a turn based game, by the rogues opposed stealth checks, vs the NPCs perception checks to (hear or see) the rogue.

The annoying large fount you have made means nothing, because no one is disagreeing on that point. You can not hide unless you have cover or concealment. a medium creature grants a lightfoot halfling concealment. Thus they could make a hide check. They remain hidden until spotted, exactly as the rules say, just as creature who was visible, can be made invisible, AND THEN make a hide check.

I'm not confusing anything with anything, and clearly have a better grasp of the rules than you do.

I was going to do another post quoting multiple reasons why you're wrong, but thankfully someone already did that for me. No facing rules in 5e = you're wrong.

Rogue in that plain walled room is now Seen and cannot be considered an Unseen Attacker, so no Advantage. Period.

[Plaguescarred]

IMHO in the entire game very few builds rely on hide-and-shoot tactic and nerfing it just screw it's efficiency even more, when it's already far from the best and hardly compete with wizard and barbarians power level.

[Plaguescarred]

Stealth is normally a defensive tactic, performed to make you harder to target for attacks, which means you usually don't attack this order to stay hidden.

Stealth as an offensive tactic is mainly performed to obtain advantage because you otherwise don't have it, and attack immediatly after, thus staying hidden only for a brief moment. It's generally the case of lightfoot halfling, wild elf or Skulker feat user coupled with a class that can both hide as a bonus action and without needing to not be seen clearly. Even then, the use of a bonus action to do this solely to gain advantage on a single attack means you're not using this ressource to do something else with it. And if you can make multiple attacks, you don't have advantage on subsequent attacks having revealed your location.

So to resume, hide-and-shoot is a uncommon tactic used by a very select race/class/feat user in order to obtain a fairly common advantage generally to get another class feature going, such as Sneak Attack. It's far from being broken if you ask me.

[Saggo]

All you need to hide is to break line of sight and not be seen.
More accurately it's either or. You only need to not be seen to be able to hide, breaking line of sight is one method of doing that (line of sight is an emergent concept of the rules at any rate, not really a defined mechanic).

[tieren]

Be sure to give the enemy the bonus to AC from the cover provided by the character the halfling is hiding behind.

If the halfling steps aside for a clear shot he is no longer an unseen attacker.

[Tanarii]

More accurately it's either or. You only need to not be seen to be able to hide, breaking line of sight is one method of doing that (line of sight is an emergent concept of the rules at any rate, not really a defined mechanic).DMG Chapter 8: Running the Game p251
USING MINIATURES
Line of Sight
To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.


(However, that's for miniatures specifically. Player's Basic Doc only references "line of sight" once: in the Frightened condition. You're right it's emergent insofar as various rules say you need to be able to see your target.)

[Saggo]

Well that's what I get for not reading my DMG and only my PHB.

Edit: Curious they don't put that in the PHB, it's a fairly integral component.

[Tanarii]

Well that's what I get for not reading my DMG and only my PHB.

Edit: Curious they don't put that in the PHB, it's a fairly integral component.
Because miniature use isn't the default assumption for playing 5e. They knew it's still common enough that the default PHB rules can easily be used with it. But they knew that it'd require more rigorous treatment by some groups, so they included that it in the DMG under Running the Game, not as an optional/variant rule. But the default assumption is the so-called "Theatre of the Mind" style of play, not battle-mat play.

Or, as DMG p250 says in the intro to the Miniatures section:
In combat, players can often rely on your description to visualize where their characters are in relation to their surroundings and their enemies. Some complex battles, however, are easier to run with visual aids, the most common of which are miniatures and a grid. If you like to construct model terrain, build three-dimension dungeons, or draw maps on large vinyl mats, you should also consider using miniatures.
The Player's Handbook offers simple rules for depicting combat using miniature figures on a grid. This section expands on that material.

Edit: To be fair, the default assumption is really that the PHB rules work just fine as simple rules for either without or with a battle-mat. Not necessarily that you'll play without. I stated it too strongly.

[Hopeless]

Area effect attack since they're hiding they can't see the attack coming so Evasion doesn't work might be kind and maybe let them take 1/2 damage but just because they can hide doesn't mean they can't be hit even if accidentally!

[Saggo]

Because miniature use isn't the default assumption for playing 5e. They knew it's still common enough that the default PHB rules can easily be used with it. But they knew that it'd require more rigorous treatment by some groups, so they included that it in the DMG under Running the Game, not as an optional/variant rule. But the default assumption is the so-called "Theatre of the Mind" style of play, not battle-mat play.

I'm aware of the Theater of Mind assumptions, but it wasn't really what I was thinking of. Line of sight isn't just integral to miniatures, but to several overarching mechanics that aren't limited to grids, including cover and hiding. I don't know if I agree with leaving line of sight undescribed and emergent for everything except for miniatures and only in the DMG, so I find it curious that they did.

[Tanarii]

I'm aware of the Theater of Mind assumptions, but it wasn't really what I was thinking of. Line of sight isn't just integral to miniatures, but to several overarching mechanics that aren't limited to grids, including cover and hiding. I don't know if I agree with leaving line of sight undescribed and emergent for everything except for miniatures and only in the DMG, so I find it curious that they did.Being able to see your target is a clearly described requirement for many mechanics. They just didn't choose to coin a special mechanical term for it, which is in keeping with the 5e philosophy of plain everyday language.

[Plaguescarred]

When playing Theater of The Mind, the DM basically determine line of sight in any given situation.

[Saggo]

Being able to see your target is a clearly described requirement for many mechanics. They just didn't choose to coin a special mechanical term for it, which is in keeping with the 5e philosophy of plain everyday language.

Seeing a target isn't line of sight, though. You can have line of sight to unseen targets/attackers, either theater of mind and grids. That's part of why I don't think this was a good place to leave it to natural language, especially if you're just going to add a technical description for a portion of it to the DMG anyway.

[Plaguescarred]

Seeing a target isn't line of sight, though. You can have line of sight to unseen targets/attackers, either theater of mind and grids. That's part of why I don't think this was a good place to leave it to natural language, especially if you're just going to add a technical description for a portion of it to the DMG anyway.Humm... while the DMG entry doesn't seem to address it specifically, you shouldn't have any line of sight to something you can't see i.e invisibility. IIRC It was like this in previous editions too.

[Mellack]

Area effect attack since they're hiding they can't see the attack coming so Evasion doesn't work might be kind and maybe let them take 1/2 damage but just because they can hide doesn't mean they can't be hit even if accidentally!

Hidden does not mean that that vision is blocked both ways. A person could be hidden in darkness or bushes and still see out just fine. They could be hidden around a door and still peek out to see the room. You are confusing it with cover. Total cover will allow a hide check. It will also stop several AoE attacks.

[Saggo]

Humm... while the DMG entry doesn't seem to address it specifically, you shouldn't have any line of sight to something you can't see i.e invisibility. IIRC It was like this in previous editions too.

If you consider line of sight only to be visual acquisition. Lines of sight are traces, properties of an encounter. You can still trace lines of sight when vision is lost, attack something you can't see if the trace is unobstructed.

[PeteNutButter]

To the OP: If you are still with us through all this ranting, I'd probably change the name of the thread:

Halfling Hiding in Combat Issue Working as Intended.



If you consider line of sight only to be visual acquisition. Lines of sight are traces, properties of an encounter. You can still trace lines of sight when vision is lost, attack something you can't see if the trace is unobstructed.

In other games/previous editions there is often a delineation between line of sight and line of effect.

Line of Sight goes through a wall of force, but Line of Effect does not.

Line of Effect goes through a fog cloud, but Line of Sight does not.

In the military we call that cover and concealment. Something that can be reasonably expected to stop small arms fire like a stone wall, or berm we call cover. While something that just prevents you from being seen and thus accurately shot at/perceived by an enemy is only concealment such as a thin wall, or foliage. In these terms cover > concealment.

[Tanarii]

Seeing a target isn't line of sight, though. You can have line of sight to unseen targets/attackers, either theater of mind and grids.Wait, what? No you can't. Because you can't see them. Therefore there is no line of sight.

You're thinking of line of effect.

[Saggo]

Wait, what? No you can't. Because you can't see them. Therefore there is no line of sight.

You're thinking of line of effect.

I was thinking of line of sight. A common technical use is just an unobstructed trace from point to point, like the DMG uses. Considering that they don't define line of effect either, vision and/or/vs traces are still emergent properties for this edition.

It's been too long since I've played other editions, so thank you for reminding me about lines of effect.

[Tanarii]

I was thinking of line of sight. A common technical use is just an unobstructed trace from point to point, like the DMG uses. Considering that they don't define line of effect either, vision and/or/vs traces are still emergent properties for this edition.Yes, that's the line part. But if you can't see the point/object/creature at the end, then you don't have line of sight.

[Saggo]

Yes, that's the line part. But if you can't see the point/object/creature at the end, then you don't have line of sight.

I don't see that in the definition you posted.

[Tanarii]

I don't see that in the definition you posted.
I thought we had decided that definition was meaningless?

Sorry, maybe I hadn't made it clear that due to the fact it was for miniatures only and 5e doesn't even use the term "Line of Sight", I had arrived at that conclusion. I thought we had come to that conclusion together in our little back and forth on this for some reason. Haha losing track

[Saggo]

I thought we had decided that definition was meaningless?

Sorry, maybe I hadn't made it clear that due to the fact it was for miniatures only and 5e doesn't even use the term "Line of Sight", I had arrived at that conclusion. I thought we had come to that conclusion together in our little back and forth on this for some reason. Haha losing track

That was me, you sounded pretty definitive, I made an incorrect connection that you were using a 5e definition.

Using older edition definitions has merit. I just forgot them and defaulted to a technical definition where line of sight somewhat paradoxically doesn't strictly mean vision.

Concept still remains the same, you can have an unobstructed line between two creatures but if one is unseen they can hide, but one way of becoming unseen is by obstructing the line.

[Malifice]

So I DM a group of level 11 adventurers. One of my players, a Halfling Rogue, will constantly hide as a bonus action behind the other ranged party members, succeed because his stealth score is insane, and get constant sneak attack against the monsters with very minimal effort.

My question is: is he able to do this? I know lightfoot halflings are able to hide behind creatures larger than them, and it makes sense that it might catch the enemy by surprise once, but he's doing it every round hiding behind the same person, usually in broad daylight. I just I can't fathom how a creature with a decent int can constantly be surprised by that every round.

As a DM, how would you rule this? Make him switch up his hiding spot, or is he well within his right to do it that way?

The halfling ability only changes what a Halfling can hide behind/ in (a M sized creature); it doesnt alter any of the other circumstances that limit hiding.

A halfling cant walk behind a human in full view of the enemy and attempt to hide (the enemy knows where he is), anymore than a human can walk behind a pillar in full view of the enemy and attempt to hide.

The halfling can attempt to hide behind a Medium creature while not under observation (just like a human can duck behind a pillar in an empty room and attempt to hide) such as before any enemy are around, or if the DM rules the enemy are sufficiently distracted to not be watching the halfling 'closely enough' (DMs call). The halfling remains hidden until he pops out of hiding (or is otherwise spotted). Once that happens, he generally cant attempt to hide again.

A Wood elf can do the same trick - hiding behind a potted ficus (light natural obscurement) in an otherwise empty room, or dissapearing inside fog while not being observed. He cant do either while under direct observation though.

Generally, the hidden halfling only gets to use the trick once per combat (assuming he hides before the monsters see him). After that one time, the jig is up (unless the DM rules that the monsters are distracted enough to not be watching the halfling closely, giving him the opportunity to again slink off and hide behind a M creature while no-one is watching).

As for sneak attack, the game assumes Rogues get it most (if not all) turns. All a Rogue generally has to do is attack someone threatened by an ally. Its not a big deal.

[Plaguescarred]

I don't see that in the definition you posted.I agree but the miniatures rules for line of sight exist to determine if vision is blocked to something you can see. Not sure what would be the prupose of having line of sight to something you can't see.



The halfling ability only changes what a Halfling can hide behind/ in (a M sized creature); it doesnt alter any of the other circumstances that limit hiding.

A halfling cant walk behind a human in full view of the enemy and attempt to hide (the enemy knows where he is), anymore than a human can walk behind a pillar in full view of the enemy and attempt to hide.

The halfling can attempt to hide behind a Medium creature while not under observation (just like a human can duck behind a pillar in an empty room and attempt to hide) such as before any enemy are around, or if the DM rules the enemy are sufficiently distracted to not be watching the halfling 'closely enough' (DMs call). The halfling remains hidden until he pops out of hiding (or is otherwise spotted). Once that happens, he generally cant attempt to hide again.

A Wood elf can do the same trick - hiding behind a potted ficus (light natural obscurement) in an otherwise empty room, or dissapearing inside fog while not being observed. He cant do either while under direct observation though.This is incorrect Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild don't make hiding harder by creating extra conditions that must be met in addition to not being seen clearly, they make it easier to hide by creating different conditions that can be met instead for them to try to hide. They can be used while in full view. It's also been clarified in a Sage Advice http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-november-2015


Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”

[Asmotherion]

If dealing with something with a low int score, like a beast etc, it should work every time. If something has an int of 11 or higher it sould be inteligent enough to find a way to counter it. Anything from getting 1/2 or 3/4 cover or simply rushing to melee would work just fine.

You are dealing with a rogue, who's playing his part smart and well. Why are you looking to punish him? Try to counter his ruse instead, if you think it's getting out of hand.

[Inglorin]

A halfling cant walk behind a human in full view of the enemy and attempt to hide (the enemy knows where he is), anymore than a human can walk behind a pillar in full view of the enemy and attempt to hide.

Ah, yes, the Great Hiding Debate ... again.

As has been decreed by the Sage's Advice that Halflings CAN hide behind a medium+ creature. Even in combat. Even if observed before ducking behind that creature.

Being hidden does NOT mean, that no one knows where you are. Your location will be perfectly clear to anyone if you jump behind your half-orc friend. Being hidden just means, that you can't be targeted directly. That's it. THAT is the meaning of "hidden". As long as you stay hidden (by staying behind that half orc) attacks that need you as a target can't hit you.

Fortunately most mundane attacks don't need you as a target, as they can target particular locations. The opposing ranger can attack the space behind that half orc. If you are still there (and the attack with disadvantage - due to beeing unseen - hits) you take damage. On the other hand that ranger might only walk a few paces to the side and get a clear view of you cowering behind the half orcs bum. No longer hidden.

[Saggo]

I agree but the miniatures rules for line of sight exist to determine if vision is blocked to something you can see. Not sure what would be the prupose of having line of sight to something you can't see.

Several reasons but at the very least if you can hide because of invisible, blindness, darkness, or another creature you can still be shot at, unlike hiding because of total cover where line if sight has been fully obstructed.

[BDRook]

You are dealing with a rogue, who's playing his part smart and well. Why are you looking to punish him? Try to counter his ruse instead, if you think it's getting out of hand.

Nobody's looking to punish anybody. I've been letting him have his class ability; I was just clarifying with other DM's to see if I was doing it right. We switched over from 4e recently, so I was looking for input from people who've played 5e for a bit. But apparently the hiding mechanics are being interpreted a number of different ways.

[Saggo]

That would be total cover and has nothing to do with line of sight.
Total cover inherently breaks line of sight, they're inextricably link, so that's not true.


Why do you need to determine line of sight?
Line of sight is a factor when determining most of what you can do in an encounter, regardless of your definition. Most people just don't consciously realize they're tracing lines of sight during their turns.

[Tanarii]

But apparently the hiding mechanics are being interpreted a number of different ways.Yep. Been happening since the release of 5e.

The reason is some people are reading them like a program for executing hiding, or like a video game "stealth" button, and parsing the rules based on that. Others are trying to read them as a set of rules to simulate hiding in the in-game reality ... and have different ideas of what that means, sometimes even the same person thinking it means different things based on the situation. Others are bringing preconcieved notions from previous editions.

For what it's worth, the developers apparently intended the hide rules to be flexible and not precise on purpose, so that they can be used to adjudicate the general concept of trying to evade detection under a variety of circumstances. In other words, they aren't supposed to be a program to execute as function "Hide". They're supposed to be adapted by the DM to use when he thinks that circumstances are appropriate to allow a creature to attempt to evade detection. (I don't have the link handy, but Mearls talks about this as part of a video another poster linked in the One With Shadows thread.)

Edit:
Link provided by DivisibleByZero: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls
Post to DivisibleByZero's post with a transcript of it: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21301039&postcount=256
(And his rather strong opinions on the subject.)

[Plaguescarred]

Total cover inherently breaks line of sight, they're inextricably link, so that's not true.
A transparent wall of force does not break line of sight for exemple, even though it's total cover because it doesn't block vision.



Line of sight is a factor when determining most of what you can do in an encounter, regardless of your definition. Most people just don't consciously realize they're tracing lines of sight during their turns.I know but what is the purpose of determining line of sight? if not to determine if you can see?

[Malifice]

I agree but the miniatures rules for line of sight exist to determine if vision is blocked to something you can see. Not sure what would be the prupose of having line of sight to something you can't see.


This is incorrect Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild don't make hiding harder by creating extra conditions that must be met in addition to not being seen clearly, they make it easier to hide by creating different conditions that can be met instead for them to try to hide. They can be used while in full view. It's also been clarified in a Sage Advice http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-november-2015


Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”

Your quote doesnt say they can hide while under direct observation.

It says: [these abilities] allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby.

I agree. An elf can attempt to hide behind a pot plant when observers are nearby. A human can attempt to hide behind a pillar when observers are nearby. Neither can attempt to hide when being directly observed.

If I know where you are (and am correct in that knowledge), you are not hidden.

It also says: It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! - which again, I agree with. An elf hiding behind a ficus [light obscurement] is cloaked from eyes staring straight at him. He should ordinarily be visible [its only light obscurement]. Its a dude standing behind a pot plant, which should ordinarly be as visible as a guy with a lampshade on his head.

An elf can walk into an empty room and hide behind a pot plant in the corner. The elf remains hidden to any creature walking in the room (barring them spotting him via perception being higher than the elfs stealth check result). It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf!

The elf just cant do it if the creauture is watching him try. He auto fails (no check allowed) He can be seen clearly at all times during the stealth attempt. Direct observation negates stealth regardless of what you're attepting to hide behind.

If I know where you are (and am correct in that knowledge), you are not hidden.

If you dont believe me, lets get you and me in my office now. We play hide and seek. Ill watch you crawl under the desk. Are you now:

A) Hidden from me?

or

B) In a position of total cover relative to me?

If you think its 'A', then you have a rude surprise when I walk over and win the game of hide and seek.

You are not hidden from me. I saw you go into your hiding spot and know where you are (and am correct in that knowledge).

Now imagine a different scenario. You crawl under my desk while I am not in the room observing you. When I open the door to my office you are hidden from me. I dont know where you are and have to actively search to find you. You could leap out from under the desk and scare the crap out of me (gaining advantage on any attacks you wanted to make against me in the process).

See the difference?

[Malifice]

As has been decreed by the Sage's Advice that Halflings CAN hide behind a medium+ creature.

Agreed.


Even in combat.

Agreed.


Even if observed before ducking behind that creature.

It doesnt say that. Read it again.

It says they are hidden when behind that creature, and can attempt it while observers are nearby. It doesnt say they can do it while being directly observed.


Being hidden does NOT mean, that no one knows where you are.

Yes it does. Check your dictionary.


Being hidden means, that you can't be targeted directly. That's it.

No, thats what being in total cover or obscurement means (or translates to). Being hidden is more than just 'not being able to be targeted'.

Example: You place a coin in the bottom drawer of your kitchen (I dont see you do this). I then walk in the kitchen, and you ask me to find the coin. Consider:

A) Is the coin hidden from me? Yes it is. I wont be able to find it unless I take the search action (or simply guess well and open the bottom drawer).

B) Is the coin hidden from you? No it is not. You know exactly where the coin is and its not hidden from you.

In both instances the coin has total cover relative to both of us. Relative to me, the coin is also hidden. Relative to you, it is not.

See the difference?

[Tanarii]

Oh come off it. You're really going to try and claim that "even eyes staring right at the elf" doesn't mean a wood elf can hide while being directly looked at? That's takes the cake for twisting language.

[Malifice]

Oh come off it. You're really going to try and claim that "even eyes staring right at the elf" doesn't mean a wood elf can hide while being directly looked at? That's takes the cake for twisting language.

Its not twisting language at all. An elf sneaks (stealth result 18) into a room behind a guard (passive perception 15) and ducks behind a pot plant in the corner.

The guard turns around.

Instead of seeing this:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/man-hiding-behind-plant-in-office-looking-through-foliage-picture-id200217394-001?s=170667a

He just sees the pot plant. Even though the guard is staring straight at the Elf, he doesnt notice him.

Guard shrugs and leaves the room, unaware the Elf is in there.

The same elf couldnt pull the same trick if the guard was watching him enter the room and jump behind the plant. In those circumstances the elf couldnt even attempt a Stealth check.

If the guard was distracted and in a fight with one of the Elfs companions, the Elf could also attempt the same trick (subject to DM call).

[Malifice]

Assuming this guy:

http://thespinoff.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/man_hiding_behind_plant_in_office_1801150.jpg

Is a wood elf.

1) If you watched him leap from his desk to jump behind the pot plant, he cant hide once he gets there. You see him just as clearly as you see this guy. He cannot take the hide action relative to you (the observer). You're observing him.

2) If you were not watching him (had your back to him) he could move from his desk to the pot plant and attempt to hide while not being observed. When you turned around and looked at the plant this time, you have a chance of not seeing him (depending on your perception vs his stealth result) even though your eyes are staring straight at him.

Hidden. Not: in total cover (because total cover does not make one hidden). Not: 'cant be seen' (because not even being invisible = hidden). But hidden.

It naturally infers more than just 'cant see me anymore' - it also carries the direct inference of 'dont know where I am with sufficient precision over and above not being able to see me/ dont know I'm here at all'

[Kane0]

It's a special ability of Lightfoots. If you wouldn't take away a Vhumans feet

Just watch me. :smallamused:

[RickAllison]

The real question is why Malifice has so many pictures of people hiding behind potted plants...

[Malifice]

The real question is why Malifice has so many pictures of people hiding behind potted plants...

Its a strange fetish...

Nah, I just found them a useful way to (hillariously) illustrate my point.

When it comes down it, its an individual DMs call (the rules are clear that the DM determines when you can hide and when you cant). For mine, I take [hidden] to mean something more than simply invisible, or cant be seen, or in total cover. It means that your opponent doesnt know where you are (or possibly is totally unaware of your presence at all).

Im not going to let a person duck behind a pillar in an open room while under direct observation and 'hide' (barring some other thing that lets him conceal his location like a secret trap door behind the pillar, or teleporting behind the pillar to a different location).

Your opponent saw you 'go into hiding'. You are not 'hidden' from him at all, regardless of what you roll on your die (I simply dont allow the check). You do have total cover however.

The wood elf and halfling abilities (and the Skulker feat) dont change this in my interpretation; they only change 'what' you can hide behind (or in). For halflings thats a M or larger creature (in addition to total cover). For wood elves its any light natural obscurement. For Skulkers its any shadow or light obscurement at all.

If you're talking to a dude with the skulker feat in my games in a dimly lit room, he cant just magically disapear under direct observation as you talk to him. If you look away from him for a bit (or are distracted) and then look back where he was, he may have dissapeared though...

Some DMs will interpret the rules differently, and all the more power to them. Its not like Im using a narrow interpretation, its just one that is logically consistent with the rules taken as a whole (and how the word hidden is used in the text) and conforms to what the word 'hidden' means in a common sense interpretation.

Each to their own though. Im not judging. Just helping the OP with a different interpretation.

[Inglorin]

Example: You place a coin in the bottom drawer of your kitchen (I dont see you do this). I then walk in the kitchen, and you ask me to find the coin. Consider:

A) Is the coin hidden from me? Yes it is. I wont be able to find it unless I take the search action (or simply guess well and open the bottom drawer).

B) Is the coin hidden from you? No it is not. You know exactly where the coin is and its not hidden from you.


This is irrelevant here. A creature being "Hidden" in D&D5 (and especially in this thread) is used as a game term and always made with a Stealth check. The colloquial (sp?) usage of the word bears no meaning in this context. The coin does not use its Stealth skill to become hidden. The coin, being an object, would be a "hidden object" as used in the description of the Investigation Skill. That is a different thing. The coin can't give itself away by breathing loudly for example. Perception (against Stealth) doesn't come into play here.

[Xetheral]

Being hidden does NOT mean, that no one knows where you are.Yes it does. Check your dictionary.

Oxford: Kept out of sight; concealed
Webster: being out of sight or not readily apparent : concealed
Dictonary.com: concealed; obscure; covert:

I'm not seeing anything in a dictionary supporting your claim. Are you citing a specific dictionary? If so, which one?

And as for your coin-in-a-drawer example, I completely disagree. If I am unable to actively detect the coin, it is hidden from me, even though I put it there. The coin is out of sight, concealed, and not readily apparent. By the definitions above, the coin is hidden from me.

[Socratov]

Oh come off it. You're really going to try and claim that "even eyes staring right at the elf" doesn't mean a wood elf can hide while being directly looked at? That's takes the cake for twisting language.

Ok, I often have a different opinion then you, but in this case I can't do anything but fully agree and share your sentiment.

[Inglorin]

Its a strange fetish...

Nah, I just found them a useful way to (hillariously) illustrate my point.


The thing is, these are neither Wood Elfs nor did they roll for stealth (particularilly well).


Your opponent saw you 'go into hiding'. You are not 'hidden' from him at all, regardless of what you roll on your die (I simply dont allow the check). You do have total cover however.


In my reading of the rules this does not matter at all (you may have guessed this). I'd like to try to get to the core of this thing, though. What does being "hidden" imply in your reading of the rules? In my interpretation it is:
- unseen & unheared (obviously)
- not directly targetable
- if you enter a room with a hidden creature you don't know its location automatically but have to rely on either your passive perception or a search

But that's it. What does "hidden" mean in your game? And could you provide a rule passage that supports your additional features of "hidden"?

[RickAllison]

For me, I see the Lightfeet and the wood elves being able to Hide in those conditions such that they move with or blend into the scenery. However, because they are being directly observed, anything that breaks the camouflage (the halfling slipping his crossbow between his person's legs, the wood elf aiming his bow) stand out just like a a thug trying to pull a knife on a policeman who is watching him for exactly that.

Ever play Assassin's Creed? It is like merging in with the scholars or in a hay bale. If you rush into those when being pursued, they know exactly where you went. They have advantage to spot you and doing anything that makes you not look like what you are blending into will single you out immediately.

[Demonslayer666]

For me, I see the Lightfeet and the wood elves being able to Hide in those conditions such that they move with or blend into the scenery. However, because they are being directly observed, anything that breaks the camouflage (the halfling slipping his crossbow between his person's legs, the wood elf aiming his bow) stand out just like a a thug trying to pull a knife on a policeman who is watching him for exactly that.

Ever play Assassin's Creed? It is like merging in with the scholars or in a hay bale. If you rush into those when being pursued, they know exactly where you went. They have advantage to spot you and doing anything that makes you not look like what you are blending into will single you out immediately.

In that situation, you are their sole focus. They aren't paying attention to anything else, so it makes perfect sense that they walk right up to where you are, while maintaining focus, so there is no chance for you to escape notice.

In a battlefield where you are dodging fireballs and ducking under maces aimed at your head, it's not so easy to maintain direct observation of 4-6 foes.

That is why it's up tot he DM to determine the situation, and let you know what you have a chance of noticing, and vice versa when it comes you you hiding.

[RickAllison]

In that situation, you are their sole focus. They aren't paying attention to anything else, so it makes perfect sense that they walk right up to where you are, while maintaining focus, so there is no chance for you to escape notice.

In a battlefield where you are dodging fireballs and ducking under maces aimed at your head, it's not so easy to maintain direct observation of 4-6 foes.

That is why it's up tot he DM to determine the situation, and let you know what you have a chance of noticing, and vice versa when it comes you you hiding.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I heartily assume that the rogue can switch targets and take advantage. He may not be unseen by the target he just shot in the face, but his buddy wasn't shot yet (and so doesn't have the direct focus) and is worried about others. Can't concentrate force as well, but he just needs to shoot people who aren't looking at him.

[Plaguescarred]

Your quote doesnt say they can hide while under direct observation.Yes it does the Sage Advice basically clarify it for those still in doubt. The bottom line is those races are given the ability to hide under different circumstances, not additional one. so it can be harder let's be honest.

''Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view.'' ... ''A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature'' ...''and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena''

And just to make sure there's no doubt, it then says

''It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! ''

[Vogonjeltz]

Well that's what I get for not reading my DMG and only my PHB.

Edit: Curious they don't put that in the PHB, it's a fairly integral component.

They do, sort of:

PHB 194 describes the steps in targeting, step 2 is "The DM determines whether the target has cover"
PHB 196 describes the varying levels of cover: half cover, three-quarters cover, total cover.

A clear path to the target (not the term line of sight) is discussed in the chapter on spells, and although it probably only has an impact on spellcasting, it specifically references the previous rule on total cover from 196:
PHB 204 "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover."

[Malifice]

Yes it does the Sage Advice basically clarify it for those still in doubt. The bottom line is those races are given the ability to hide under different circumstances, not additional one. so it can be harder let's be honest.

''Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view.'' ... ''A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature'' ...''and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena''

And just to make sure there's no doubt, it then says

''It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! ''

That's not how I read it.

[Squiddish]

We're going to need sage advice on the sage advice, aren't we?

As for the original topic, I would rule that the opposing creature would need to make a perception check if the halfling was in the same spot the whole time. Otherwise it might not realize that it is, in fact, the halfling shooting it.

But remember, if you have any melee fighters in the party this is moot, since rogues get automatic sneak attack if they have an ally within 5 feet of the enemy.

[Socratov]

We're going to need sage advice on the sage advice, aren't we?

As for the original topic, I would rule that the opposing creature would need to make a perception check if the halfling was in the same spot the whole time. Otherwise it might not realize that it is, in fact, the halfling shooting it.

But remember, if you have any melee fighters in the party this is moot, since rogues get automatic sneak attack if they have an ally within 5 feet of the enemy.

but still advantage is very nice to have, and hidden (to say, not directly targetable) is also very nice for a rogue.

[Malifice]

but still advantage is very nice to have, and hidden (to say, not directly targetable) is also very nice for a rogue.

I'm still trying to discern what the Rogue is doing back there to make him 'hidden'.

Like... he ducks behind a pillar gaining total cover = not hidden.

He ducks behind a pillar gaining total cover and then while out of view 'takes the hide action' = hidden.

What is he doing exactly behind this pillar to create this sudden lack of object permanence in his target?

Surely being 'hidden' infers something about the state of mind of the observer. As in.. the observer doesnt know if the Rogue is behind the pillar anymore or not.

Certainly in my games, once a creature is hidden, the creatures mini is taken off the map, and the assumption is that no-one he is hidden relative to, know where he is anymore (and may not even be aware of his presence at all).

[Zalabim]

The difference when he's hidden is that he can move around without his position being tracked closely. They can no longer tell if he's hugging the pillar or retreating. He's moving too quietly. Either way, they still remember where he was last seen.

[Socratov]

Simple: the rogue is being out of sight. If you see someone draw a bead or attacking, it is easier to block, parry, dodge or otherwise interfere with the attack: you know whn it's coming, where it's coming and how it is delivered.

If you see someone attacking you (even if you know the general area that person would be in) it's a lot harder to anticipate the attack in your offensive/defensive patterns. The fact that you don't know at which side of the obstruction the rogue wil reappear. That creates an unkown factor in terms of expectations regarding incoming attacks.

[Tanarii]

Simple: the rogue is being out of sight. If you see someone draw a bead or attacking, it is easier to block, parry, dodge or otherwise interfere with the attack: you know whn it's coming, where it's coming and how it is delivered.

If you see someone attacking you (even if you know the general area that person would be in) it's a lot harder to anticipate the attack in your offensive/defensive patterns. The fact that you don't know at which side of the obstruction the rogue wil reappear. That creates an unkown factor in terms of expectations regarding incoming attacks.I don't agree with Malifice's interpretation of the rules language, but you haven't answered his question about the in-game action the rules are simulating. He's asking what has the rogue done differently in these two scenarios:
'I stand behind the pillar and can't be seen, then lean out to one side to attack', no bonus action to hide, no advantage.
VS
'I stand behind the pillar and can't be seen, then lean out to one side to attack', bonus action to hide, advantage.

Alternately, if you're a Rules results --> in-game reality description of action type of person: what has your rogue done differently when he succeeded on a hide check vs not attempting one, given in both cases he can't be seen at all total cover?

Edit: Note that this question is basically the same as 'why do you make hide checks at all if you can't be seen', but the difference is Malifice's basic assumption that you can't hide if someone watches you move to a location that you can't be seen and it's the only possible place you can be.

[Socratov]

I don't agree with Malifice's interpretation of the rules language, but you haven't answered his question about the in-game action the rules are simulating. He's asking what has the rogue done differently in these two scenarios:
'I stand behind the pillar and can't be seen, then lean out to one side to attack', no bonus action to hide, no advantage.
VS
'I stand behind the pillar and can't be seen, then lean out to one side to attack', bonus action to hide, advantage.

Alternately, if you're a Rules results --> in-game reality description of action type of person: what has your rogue done differently when he succeeded on a hide check vs not attempting one, given in both cases he can't be seen at all total cover?

Edit: Note that this question is basically the same as 'why do you make hide checks at all if you can't be seen', but the difference is Malifice's basic assumption that you can't hide if someone watches you move to a location that you can't be seen and it's the only possible place you can be.

In that case it's all about the fact that hiding out of sight (as in, making sure someone can't see you directly) is a geometry and abstract thinking problem. Successful deduction of lines of sight, positioning, and the luck ofhaving hte right timing to peek while the other guy is distracted makes for a successful hide check. MIssing any of these will invalidate the hide check.

[Tanarii]

In that case it's all about the fact that hiding out of sight (as in, making sure someone can't see you directly) is a geometry and abstract thinking problem. Successful deduction of lines of sight, positioning, and the luck ofhaving hte right timing to peek while the other guy is distracted makes for a successful hide check. MIssing any of these will invalidate the hide check.
In other words, if you don't hide you don't really have total cover?

Edit: Still arguing Devils advocate here. But that's what it looks like you're claiming to me. Enlighten me if I misunderstood.

[Plaguescarred]

I'm still trying to discern what the Rogue is doing back there to make him 'hidden'.

Like... he ducks behind a pillar gaining total cover = not hidden.

He ducks behind a pillar gaining total cover and then while out of view 'takes the hide action' = hidden.

What is he doing exactly behind this pillar to create this sudden lack of object permanence in his target?

Surely being 'hidden' infers something about the state of mind of the observer. As in.. the observer doesnt know if the Rogue is behind the pillar anymore or not.

Certainly in my games, once a creature is hidden, the creatures mini is taken off the map, and the assumption is that no-one he is hidden relative to, know where he is anymore (and may not even be aware of his presence at all).The rogue is making himself silent or otherwise concealing his tracks or other signs of his location etc.. Being hidden doesn't erase any creature's memory so if you go hide behind a pillar, people can still be aware of your presence and assume you're right behind it but since you're now hidden and silent, you may not be exactly within 5 feet of it if you silently moved straight away while remaining covered by the pillar. In fact you're always aware of a hidden creature's last location so it's always best to move away after hiding.

In a large empty room with a single pillar, simply moving so that the pillar isn't providing cover to the hidden creature should reveal it's location immediatly though.

[Plaguescarred]

He's asking what has the rogue done differently in these two scenarios:
'I stand behind the pillar and can't be seen, then lean out to one side to attack', no bonus action to hide, no advantage.Technically if you can't be seen behind a pillar, leaning out to attack will be with advantage only if you're still unseen when doing so, this wether you're hidden or not. If come out of hiding or cover from the pillar you're visible and normally don't have advantage from being unseen from either the pillar's obscurement, or the hidden condition.

The rules says that under certain circumstances, a DM might allow you to still gain advantage on attack as you come out of hiding however.

[Tanarii]

Technically if you can't be seen behind a pillar, leaning out to attack will be with advantage only if you're still unseen when doing so, this wether you're hidden or not. If come out of hiding or cover from the pillar you're visible and normally don't have advantage from being unseen from either the pillar's obscurement, or the hidden condition.This stipulation makes most so-called pop-up hiding/attacks impossible. You'd have to do it from invisibility or total concealment that you could see through.

Edit: Talking about combat-related pop-up hiding, in which your opponents are assumed to be mostly watching things going on around them.

[Socratov]

In other words, if you don't hide you don't really have total cover?

Edit: Still arguing Devils advocate here. But that's what it looks like you're claiming to me. Enlighten me if I misunderstood.
Maybe you misunderstood, maybe I failed to make my point clear, in any case Plaguescarred seems to have done a better job at it then I did.

Technically if you can't be seen behind a pillar, leaning out to attack will be with advantage only if you're still unseen when doing so, this wether you're hidden or not. If come out of hiding or cover from the pillar you're visible and normally don't have advantage from being unseen from either the pillar's obscurement, or the hidden condition.

The rules says that under certain circumstances, a DM might allow you to still gain advantage on attack as you come out of hiding however.


This stipulation makes most so-called pop-up hiding/attacks impossible. You'd have to do it from invisibility or total concealment that you could see through.

Edit: Talking about combat-related pop-up hiding, in which your opponents are assumed to be mostly watching things going on around them.
Well, yes and no. If the other person is continiously observing the player (best represented by a delayed action (like I wait until he leans out to attack from behind his hiding palce and then I attack), the pop-up strategy has failed: he loses cover (and therefore the unseen attacker ability). ->ergo: popping out does not give advantage

However, if the enemy has more pressing concerns (i.e. attacks a differnet person on his turn in combat, casts a apell, or whatever) he will need to roll perception vs the rogue's passive stealth, OR the rogue will have to roll stealth (during hiding action) vs target passive perception. This check will determine wether the target sees the attack coming or not and can take countermeasures as neccessary (or not) which leads to wether or not the rogue has advantage on its attack.

In layman terms it's like follows: a cow is a bovine animal, but a bovine animal is not neccessarily a cow. Wetheryou can consider a bovine animal a cow depends on wether the DM thinks the animal could be a cow and wether you can see it being a cow. Knowing that the animal in question is a bovine animal is fine and tells a lot about it, but until you are sure it's a cow, I'd advise against milking it.

[Plaguescarred]

This stipulation makes most so-called pop-up hiding/attacks impossible. You'd have to do it from invisibility or total concealment that you could see through.

Edit: Talking about combat-related pop-up hiding, in which your opponents are assumed to be mostly watching things going on around them.Exactly hence why the rules says 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. You'd have to be able to attack without coming out of hiding like when being invisible, heavily obscured, lightly obscured by foliage for a woold elf or by a larger creature for an halfling :)

A solid obstruction providing obscurement such as one providing total cover (wall, pillar etc..) is not ideal for offensive Stealth use like hide and shoot tactics, since you cannot attack through it and must instead move so it's out of the way, which intricably makes you visible again and break Stealth. It's best use for defensively when "taking cover", like the better known expression.

Unless the DM rule that the target is heavily distracted. But such target should also then not see one not hidden but also standing behind total cover to attack with advantage :smallsmile:

[Herobizkit]

Late to the thread.

All in all, it's a combination of games mechanics and the disparity of real-world situations that is causing all of the insanity.

I feel that the Elder Scroll Online's Stealth mechanic explains 5e stealth perfectly.

To Hide, a character needs to break LoS in order to qualify for the Hidden "status" (or "tag", let's say).

The character is now Hidden. While Hidden, he must maintain a successful Stealth check/contest against a target in order to remain Hidden (and gain the Advantage of being Hidden). In ESO, this is represented by making your character look shadowed.

Given the example of a PC walking into a open room with a guard in the middle, here's what happens.

The PC has a chance of being seen. The PC rolls Stealth. If the PC beasts the target's Passive Perception, he remains hidden, DESPITE what Reality would have you believe. This is a function of the game mechanics. Maybe the guard wasn't looking that way at the time. Maybe the guard nodded off for a few seconds. Maybe the guard was busy pretending he was anywhere else but doing guard duty in an empty room.

Now, let's assume that Guard is super-serious at his job and sits there, watching the door for intruders. Now the PC has to make a Stealth check against the guards (Active) Perception check. If the player succeeds? He's still Hidden, DESPITE what Reality would have you believe. This is a function of game mechanics. It's assumed that the PC was sitting/lying/controlling his breath, waiting for the opportune time to sneak around the corner or bum rush the guy. If the guard failed his Perception check, he's a sitting duck.

If the PC doesn't beat the guard's Perception (Passive or Active), he "un-shadows" and becomes visible.

To be fair, ESO has a 'facing' mechanic in play and the closer you get to someone, the easier a time that someone is gonna have to see you, but there are character mechanics that can improve you Stealth in order to overcome this obstacle.

Just like in D&D.

Let the mechanics do their job and worry less about the fluff. PC's are heroes. Let 'em be heroes.