Why are DMs so eager to deprive rogues of sneak attack?

[Dalebert]

It seems apparent to me that getting sneak attack most of the time is the defining thing about a rogue. They won't always get it obviously, but they have multiple ways to make it a high likelihood in most cases. It seems to be part of the math just to keep them on par with melee who get multiple attacks.

Without going into details right away, I've seen SO MANY bizarre rule interpretations that seem intended to severely nerf rogues. Is it just me or does this seem like a trend?

[Naanomi]

It seems apparent to me that getting sneak attack most of the time is the defining thing about a rogue. They won't always get it obviously, but they have multiple ways to make it a high likelihood in most cases. It seems to be part of the math just to keep them on par with melee who get multiple attacks.

Without going into details right away, I've seen SO MANY bizarre rule interpretations that seem intended to severely nerf rogues. Is it just me or does this seem like a trend?
To an old player like myself, Sneak Attack has never been easier (and more clearly defined in the rules as to how it occurs). The surprise attack aspect of the Assassin Subclass (and how hard or easy it is to achieve based on GM factors) is more what I am used to historically

[Kane0]

Historically it wasn't so easy. The base requirements were more strict and the list of things that negated it could get quite long (same story for crits). It was one of those things you just learned to take into account, especially since rogues could hit with sneak attacks multiple times per round/turn unlike in 5e.
Theres also some cognitive dissonance for some people when a rogue can sneak attack without really even trying to be sneaky about it.

[busterswd]

It seems apparent to me that getting sneak attack most of the time is the defining thing about a rogue. They won't always get it obviously, but they have multiple ways to make it a high likelihood in most cases. It seems to be part of the math just to keep them on par with melee who get multiple attacks.

Without going into details right away, I've seen SO MANY bizarre rule interpretations that seem intended to severely nerf rogues. Is it just me or does this seem like a trend?

Sneak Attack also used to be multiple times per round, so it was a bit stronger back then. This may be holdover from that.

I also think DMs kind of fear alpha strikes instinctively; it's quite irritating when you have an elaborate boss fight set up and the players kill the boss before the boss can act.

That being said, I don't think I've seen a huge push back on sneak attack in 5e, but rather stealth; having a good hide skill isn't and shouldn't be akin to invsibility.

[NNescio]

Historically it wasn't so easy. The base requirements were more strict and the list of things that negated it could get quite long (same story for crits). It was one of those things you just learned to take into account, especially since rogues could hit with sneak attacks multiple times per round/turn unlike in 5e.
Theres also some cognitive dissonance for some people when a rogue can sneak attack without really even trying to be sneaky about it.

At least it's no longer called backstab like back in AD&D 2nd ed, (and in 1st ed. and IIRC in older editions too). Oh the horrors of the DM restricting to melee piercing weapons only. Not letting ranged weapons work can be sorta understandable (even though they are allowed by RAW and RAI per Sage Advice back then), but not even letting the Thief (that's what the Rogue was called back then) use a sap/blackjack with it was ridiculous.

(Being behind your opponent and being able to reach his actual back [facing rules existed back then] was required by RAW though. Also being undetected.)

Of course, 5e doesn't have saps/blackjacks, so the Rogue strictly speaking can't SA with a club, but eh, an Assassin can stab some poor guard with a dagger for more than 3 times his maximum health (and that's before taking Magic Initiate for Booming Blade/GFB) and still only knock him out if he wants it to be nonlethal.

[Pex]

It seems apparent to me that getting sneak attack most of the time is the defining thing about a rogue. They won't always get it obviously, but they have multiple ways to make it a high likelihood in most cases. It seems to be part of the math just to keep them on par with melee who get multiple attacks.

Without going into details right away, I've seen SO MANY bizarre rule interpretations that seem intended to severely nerf rogues. Is it just me or does this seem like a trend?

It's an unfortunate happenstance that some DMs hate PCs being "powerful". Anything more than "I attack" "You hit roll for damage." "I do 6 damage." means the player is a power gamer min/maxing rollplaying munchkin. I'm being facetious, but there is truth to the hyperbole.

Another possibility is the DM doesn't mind PCs doing high numbers of damage, but it has to be the warrior doing it or the spellcaster casting a blast spell. The rogue is meant to scout, deal with traps, and steal things on the side. He should not be doing more damage than the fighter who only does 1d8 + 6 damage on a hit.

A third possibility isn't so cynical. The DM means well but cares too much about realism. He is rapt up in what he conceives as possible or impossible in the real world and applies it to the game. If the guy at the gym can't do it neither can your character. It has a sometimes unfortunate side effect of letting spellcasters do anything because it's magic.

[War_lord]

Older DM's taking their 3.5 and earlier knowledge and just assuming that it applies to 5e. It doesn't help that it's still called "sneak attack" when the simplest way of getting it in actual combat is actually via 5e's version of flanking.

[Human Paragon 3]

Can you provide an example of how a DM would deny sneak attack when it should be entitled? The rules seem pretty clear. If the rogue has advantage or there is an ally nearby, they are entitled to sneak attack dice.

[Garresh]

I find that most gamers in general, not just DMs, have a strong distaste for subtlety and things which are not explicit. It manifests itself in many ways, with sneak attack being an obvious one. The truly sad thing is that sneak attack doesn't actually do that much damage. A level 9 rogue with a hand crossbow hits for 6d6+5 damage, which averages 26 damage. A two handed fighter *without* feats will hit for 4d6+10 damage, which comes out to 24 damage. Add in Eldritch Knight cantrips or battlemaster maneuvers, and it takes the lead. Add in feats, and rogue dpr gets crushed. Rogues have never been high damage. But for some reason, people fear them.

You see the same crap with stealth in 5e. People are so afraid of trickster archetypes, especially rogues. Often stealth cannot be used because oh no its scary.

I mean hell even in Skyrim people always cry about how stealth is OP(it is), but they ignore all the other OP crap, like *all 3* crafting skills, or Illusions, or Archery, or Conjuration. You get the idea.

For the life of me, I've never understood why, but rogues elicit more distaste than any other class or archetype, across almost all genres of game. Its just weird.

[Spiritchaser]

I would hesitate to use anything from Skyrim in a discussion about balance, or about fear of imbalance...

I would say Skyrim is an excellent discussion point if the argument is that in single player, things do not have to be balanced in order to be fun, but that's a different discussion.

Anyway: I think rogue, and melee damage in general needs all the help it can get, particularly when measured against a barrage of eldritch blasts or even a single fireball cast by a fighter 1/bladelock x or fighter 1/abjurer x wearing full armor and sporting significant survival capability.

The rogue in the party is an NPC, so it's not quite the same, but between 1 and 5 he missed his sneak attack maybe 3 or 4 times, and two of those were early on when he was fighting AGAINST the party...

They let him live (complicated) and they eventually killed his old boss as a group (not a very pleasant person)

With the help of four stealthy characters and the rogue's sneak attack, and arguably a little luck they did it in one round. They did it before he got a single action.

It wasn't they way I expected the fight to go, but it was a cool moment, and they did it their way.

[NNescio]

I find that most gamers in general, not just DMs, have a strong distaste for subtlety and things which are not explicit. It manifests itself in many ways, with sneak attack being an obvious one. The truly sad thing is that sneak attack doesn't actually do that much damage. A level 9 rogue with a hand crossbow hits for 6d6+5 damage, which averages 26 damage. A two handed fighter *without* feats will hit for 4d6+10 damage, which comes out to 24 damage. Add in Eldritch Knight cantrips or battlemaster maneuvers, and it takes the lead. Add in feats, and rogue dpr gets crushed. Rogues have never been high damage. But for some reason, people fear them.

You see the same crap with stealth in 5e. People are so afraid of trickster archetypes, especially rogues. Often stealth cannot be used because oh no its scary.

I mean hell even in Skyrim people always cry about how stealth is OP(it is), but they ignore all the other OP crap, like *all 3* crafting skills, or Illusions, or Archery, or Conjuration. You get the idea.

For the life of me, I've never understood why, but rogues elicit more distaste than any other class or archetype, across almost all genres of game. Its just weird.

People don't like getting outsmarted, methinks.

[Contrast]

You notice the rogue doing a single large hit more than you notice the warrior doing multiple medium hits.

That said I've found the main limitation in this edition is not getting sneak attack. You should usually be able to sneak attack someone - the question is if the person you can sneak attack is the person you want to be attacking. Having to run and stab barbarian the fighter was engaging is much less appealing then being able to sneak attack the wizard.

One of the reasons Booming Blade is amazing on a rogue is that it keeps your damage worthwhile even if you're not sneak attacking. This is also the reason I love swashbucklers.

[JellyPooga]

It's an unfortunate happenstance that some DMs hate PCs being "powerful". Anything more than "I attack" "You hit roll for damage." "I do 6 damage." means the player is a power gamer min/maxing rollplaying munchkin. I'm being facetious, but there is truth to the hyperbole.

To expand somewhat on this point (which is the most common wall I've faced as a regular Rogue player), those same GMs tend to go goggle-eyed and open-mouthed when you pick up 4d6 to roll your damage, because "that's twice as much as the Fighter with his Greatsword!" and despite the fact that they're happy for the Wizard to pick up fist-fulls of dice when casting Fireball or the like. For those GMs, I've noticed, the difference between one attack that deals 4d6 and two attacks that deal 2d6 is the difference between "OP! OP! NERF BAT!" and "Cool! Your Fighter is awesome!" respectively. I've had a Critical hit all but negated before, when I said I'd be rolling 8d6 for damage, with the reason "No, that's too powerful; the Crit only doubles your weapon damage" on the same turn the Wizard in the party cast Fireball, which passed without comment :smallannoyed:

As far as I can fathom, it's a simple misunderstanding of the numbers involved and typically, those same GMs tend to struggle when creating balanced encounters above level 5 (I swear, the main reason the majority of games I play rarely go above level 6 is because of GMs like this that don't get the mathmatics involved in the game).

Common "nerfs" I've seen to Sneak Attack;
- You have to make a successful Stealth check in addition to meeting other requirements (one check per attempted Sneak Attack, no additional benefit for success)
- You have to be hidden (no other qualification counts)
- Sneak Attack dice aren't doubled on a crit
- You can only use a dagger or similarly small weapon (e.g. dart or blowgun)
- You have to be behind the target
- (holdover from previous editions) You can't Sneak Attack constructs, undead, oozes or elementals
- The target must have a "weak-spot" and you have to know where it is (e.g. fighting a Devil, I was disallowed Sneak Attack because I failed a Religion check)

[NNescio]

To expand somewhat on this point (which is the most common wall I've faced as a regular Rogue player), those same GMs tend to go goggle-eyed and open-mouthed when you pick up 4d6 to roll your damage, because "that's twice as much as the Fighter with his Greatsword!" and despite the fact that they're happy for the Wizard to pick up fist-fulls of dice when casting Fireball or the like. For those GMs, I've noticed, the difference between one attack that deals 4d6 and two attacks that deal 2d6 is the difference between "OP! OP! NERF BAT!" and "Cool! Your Fighter is awesome!" respectively. I've had a Critical hit all but negated before, when I said I'd be rolling 8d6 for damage, with the reason "No, that's too powerful; the Crit only doubles your weapon damage" on the same turn the Wizard in the party cast Fireball without comment :smallannoyed:

As far as I can fathom, it's a simple misunderstanding of the numbers involved and typically, those same GMs tend to struggle when creating balanced encounters above level 5 (I swear, the main reason the majority of games I play rarely go above level 6 is because of GMs like this that don't get the mathmatics involved in the game).

My experience with DnD is that most DMs are bad at math. This include DMs who are otherwise good at math when they're on the other side of the DM screen. Fatigue and the mental weight of keeping track of the setting on top of designing encounters and NPCs and roleplaying each of them must be a factor.

(On some rare cases it would be a jerk DM.)

The most common mistake I've seen is the DM going full-on Monty Haul giving players blatantly overpowered* weapons and items and then getting forced to design unbalanced encounters with overly-high CR'ed monsters in a frantic attempt to reign everything in.

(*My personal flaw as DM is to go too far in the other direction sometimes.)

Or rolling for stats, that works too. Wasn't that bad in 3.5e, but 5e with bounded accuracy magnifies disparities in stats too much.



Common "nerfs" I've seen to Sneak Attack;
- You have to make a successful Stealth check in addition to meeting other requirements (one check per attempted Sneak Attack, no additional benefit for success)
- You have to be hidden (no other qualification counts)
- Sneak Attack dice aren't doubled on a crit
- You can only use a dagger or similarly small weapon (e.g. dart or blowgun)
- You have to be behind the target
- (holdover from previous editions) You can't Sneak Attack constructs, undead, oozes or elementals
- The target must have a "weak-spot" and you have to know where it is (e.g. fighting a Devil, I was disallowed Sneak Attack because I failed a Religion check)

I don't usually play Rogue (and when I do it's AT), but you have my utmost sympathy. Seriously, that's like taking away spellcasting from the Bard. Rogue (other than AT and maybe MM) can't really contribute much in combat if SA gets denied arbitrarily all the time.

[PanosIs]

I'm playing a heavily homebrewed 5e in the game I've been running and I have denied Sneak attacks against creatures with no obvious weak spots, or made it harder to Sneak attack. In example in a recent encounter against a giant statue that was 20 feet tall, the rogue couldn't sneak attack hitting the legs of the statue but instead had to climb up. Similarly, a rogue cannot sneak attack amorphous creatures and similar in my game.

But at the same time I've cranked up the things that people cannot deal with by themselves a lot, I've had encounters were creatures had complete immunity to physical damage, or had DR and the fighter was dealing 1-2 damage per attack while the rogue was dealing hits in the 15-20 range.

Generally as long as it remains realistic I have no issue with the rogue getting sneak attack every round, as long as there are at least some hoops to go through, and adding more obstacles can make rogue play more rewarding as long as you're not overly gimping your player. (I do gimp my rogue, but I gimp everyone every now and then)

[Zombimode]

Older DM's taking their 3.5 and earlier knowledge and just assuming that it applies to 5e. It doesn't help that it's still called "sneak attack" when the simplest way of getting it in actual combat is actually via 5e's version of flanking.

Yeah, see, I don't think this is true at all. In 3.5 the condition for when sneak attack applies are Crystal clear. They are also quite permissive (Just need a flanking buddy and you're good. Target is forced to make a Balance check without haven 5 ranks in Balance? Sneak attack-able for one round. Etc.).
I have no idea what kind of hold-over from 3.5 should result in limiting 5e sneak attacks.

[NNescio]

Yeah, see, I don't think this is true at all. In 3.5 the condition for when sneak attack applies are Crystal clear. They are also quite permissive (Just need a flanking buddy and you're good. Target is forced to make a Balance check without haven 5 ranks in Balance? Sneak attack-able for one round. Etc.).
I have no idea what kind of hold-over from 3.5 should result in limiting 5e sneak attacks.


A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

That's where the most crippling restriction on 3.5e Rogue SA comes from. And the one that PanosIs and the other DMs are drawing from for their houserules.

Of course, as it was 3.5e, immunities don't really mean immunities, in the sense that there are almost always some sort of exception to ignore it. Wands of Gravestrike/Plantstrike/Golemstrike (spells introduced in 3.5e SpC) were hot items among Rogues for that reason.

Perhaps you were thinking of Pathfinder, where they removed most of those restrictions (reintroduced a bit as part of some creatures' stat blocks)?

Edit: Typo: Zombimode -> PanosIs

[Zombimode]

That's where the most crippling restriction on 3.5e Rogue SA comes from. And the one that Zombimode and the other DMs are drawing from for their houserules.

Nice one making completely unfounded assumptions here :smallmad:

Which is even more baffling to me since you obviously have enough System Knowledge to realize the usual options (but you missed the even better options for Constructs and Undead in the form of Weapon Crystals) to deal with such creatures.

Besides, I was talking about the conditions where Sneak Attack is applicable in the first place, according to my impression what this thread is about. The target being immune/resistant to it or not has no bearing on that.

[JAL_1138]

...This strikes me as weird, because I have to remind the Rogue to try attacking things within 5ft of an ally, or BA hide for advantage...I have some issues with how hiding/stealth works in this edition, but I see no reason to stack additional restrictions on SA. Rogues are balanced around getting it every time they attack on their turn and occasionally on op attacks. It evens out they only get one attack, maybe two if they burn a bonus action, so they have a much higher chance to whiff completely than someone with Extra Attack. Not sure I like GFB/BB interacting with it since they become must-take cantrips for DPR, but I build characters around doing just that with Smites, so I'd be hypocritical to disallow it.

Assassin bonus is kinda hard to get, per the surprise rules. If an enemy sees any threat (such as the Fighter clanking up in shiny fullplate further down the hall), they're not Surprised. I can't well run a group stealth check if the Assassin is the only one even trying to sneak.

[Theodoxus]

Nice one making completely unfounded assumptions here :smallmad:

Which is even more baffling to me since you obviously have enough System Knowledge to realize the usual options (but you missed the even better options for Constructs and Undead in the form of Weapon Crystals) to deal with such creatures.

Besides, I was talking about the conditions where Sneak Attack is applicable in the first place, according to my impression what this thread is about. The target being immune/resistant to it or not has no bearing on that.

I don't understand the need to bring back such restrictions.

Sneak attack isn't exploiting a vulnerability as in 3.P - which made sense against constructs and undead and amorphous... it's "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction". You're telling me that constructs, undead and amorphous critters can never be distracted!?!

You speak of system knowledge, yet refuse to grok that 5E is a different animal with different rules...

Or, as some people love to point out: Why can't martials have nice things?

[Contrast]

Snip

Hopefully you also introduce encounters that are particularly difficult for casters specifically as the things you've outlined there all seem to specifically nerf physical attackers of all types to varying degrees.

[NNescio]

Nice one making completely unfounded assumptions here :smallmad:

:smalleek:

Ah oops, sorry, I meant PanosIs. :smallredface:

In any case, PF did remove most of those restrictions compared to 3.5e, and a lot of people playing both editions tend to confuse one ruleset for another, so yes, my assumption was based on reasonable premises.


Besides, I was talking about the conditions where Sneak Attack is applicable in the first place, according to my impression what this thread is about. The target being immune/resistant to it or not has no bearing on that.

Well, one of the conditions for SA being applicable in 3.5e was that the target be a "living creature with discernible anatomy", itself an extension of SA being described as "strike a vital spot for extra damage." No vital point, or can't reach those vital points, no SA (back then, in 3.5e). DMs

Most monsters were not explicitly described as being immune to SA (not part of their statblock). Them being immune was a consequence of the RAW of the 3.5e Rogue's SA class feature. Heck, it wasn't even written as part of their type (or subtype) traits either. They were only immune because they did not have vitals, and the 3.5e Rogue SA required the Rogue to strike vitals (hence being unable to fulfill one of the conditions of the 3.5e Rogue SA feature).

So yes, it has complete bearing on the topic at hand.

As seen from the 3.5e rules for SA, as well as mentions of DR (damage resistance), it is patently clear where PanosIs derived his houserules from.


Hopefully you also introduce encounters that are particularly difficult for casters specifically as the things you've outlined there all seem to specifically nerf physical attackers of all types to varying degrees.

Guy at the Gym fallacy, etc. etc., but I have a feeling magic/spell resistance, magic/spell immunity and AMFs are common in his campaign setting too.

[Zombimode]

I don't understand the need to bring back such restrictions.

Sneak attack isn't exploiting a vulnerability as in 3.P - which made sense against constructs and undead and amorphous... it's "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction". You're telling me that constructs, undead and amorphous critters can never be distracted!?!

You speak of system knowledge, yet refuse to grok that 5E is a different animal with different rules...

... I am completely at loss how you can infer anything you wrote in that post from what I've said.


Ok, maybe we should start again.

This thread raised the question why some DM seem to see the Need to put various kinds of restrictions to the Sneak Attack ability. These additional restriction includes things like restricting the allowed weapons, requiring notions of "standing behind", requiring being hidden or a stealth check and so on.

Several explanations for such behavior where given. One of them suggested that those ruling are hold-overs from 3.5.
To which I responded and expressed my doubt that the kind of nerfs to sneak attack can come from an 3.5 DM considering how clear that edtion handled the condition for Sneak Attack and the none of the restrictions mentioned in this thread actually preculde Sneak Attack in 3.5.

This is what I said, nothing more and nothing less.

[PanosIs]

@Contrast: Yes, I like to challenge all of my players and present situations in which they have to use otherwise suboptimal strategies or things they wouldn't have thought of if I didn't disrupt their core play pattern. It just so happens that my players were more martial than magical.

@NNescio: I consider sneak attack being taking advantage of an opponents distraction to land a solid hit. Thusly most creatures can be Sneak Attacked and this is true for both undead and constructs although to different extents. From another recent encounter a big undead monster that was an amalgam of 30-40 skeletons, couldn't be sneak attacked unless striking a specific body part (it's "head"), this wasn't hard to do although it did include a skill check or climbing to the nearby balconies or other such elevated place, and created and interesting battle. An amorphous creature like an ooze can't be Sneak Attacked in any way because, well, any hit will do the exact same thing, I don't think that will come up often enough to make a player feel bad.

[Zombimode]

Well, one of the conditions for SA being applicable in 3.5e was that the target be a "living creature with discernible anatomy", itself an extension of SA being described as "strike a vital spot for extra damage." No vital point, or can't reach those vital points, no SA (back then, in 3.5e). DMs

Most monsters were not explicitly described as being immune to SA (not part of their statblock). Them being immune was a consequence of the RAW of the 3.5e Rogue's SA class feature. Heck, it wasn't even written as part of their type (or subtype) traits either. They were only immune because they did not have vitals, and the 3.5e Rogue SA required the Rogue to strike vitals (hence being unable to fulfill one of the conditions of the 3.5e Rogue SA feature).

Execpt that in 3.5 all creature types that are immune to SA for the ground of having no discernable anatomy ore not being a living creature list this immunity in the Type traits, and all creatures that are not one of those type but were still intended to be immune/resistant to SA have this immunity/resistance listed in their statblocks.

DMs that rule otherwise are simply wrong.

[NNescio]

... I am completely at loss how you can infer anything you wrote in that post from what I've said.


Ok, maybe we should start again.

This thread raised the question why some DM seem to see the Need to put various kinds of restrictions to the Sneak Attack ability. These additional restriction includes things like restricting the allowed weapons, requiring notions of "standing behind", requiring being hidden or a stealth check and so on.

Several explanations for such behavior where given. One of them suggested that those ruling are hold-overs from 3.5.
To which I responded and expressed my doubt that the kind of nerfs to sneak attack can come from an 3.5 DM considering how clear that edtion handled the condition for Sneak Attack and the none of the restrictions mentioned in this thread actually preculde Sneak Attack in 3.5.

This is what I said, nothing more and nothing less.

Because those highly-specific restrictions seem to be patently derived from the rules for the 3.5e Rogue SA?

Compare:


If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.



Common "nerfs" I've seen to Sneak Attack;
- You have to make a successful Stealth check in addition to meeting other requirements (one check per attempted Sneak Attack, no additional benefit for success)
- You have to be hidden (no other qualification counts)
- Sneak Attack dice aren't doubled on a crit
- You can only use a dagger or similarly small weapon
- You have to be behind the target
- (holdover from previous editions) You can't Sneak Attack constructs, undead, oozes or elementals
- The target must have a "weak-spot" and you have to know where it is (e.g. fighting a Devil, I was disallowed Sneak Attack because I failed a Religion check)

And this:


I'm playing a heavily homebrewed 5e in the game I've been running and I have denied Sneak attacks against creatures with no obvious weak spots, or made it harder to Sneak attack. In example in a recent encounter against a giant statue that was 20 feet tall, the rogue couldn't sneak attack hitting the legs of the statue but instead had to climb up. Similarly, a rogue cannot sneak attack amorphous creatures and similar in my game.

But at the same time I've cranked up the things that people cannot deal with by themselves a lot, I've had encounters were creatures had complete immunity to physical damage, or had DR and the fighter was dealing 1-2 damage per attack while the rogue was dealing hits in the 15-20 range.

Generally as long as it remains realistic I have no issue with the rogue getting sneak attack every round, as long as there are at least some hoops to go through, and adding more obstacles can make rogue play more rewarding as long as you're not overly gimping your player. (I do gimp my rogue, but I gimp everyone every now and then)

Also the mentioning of DR.


Execpt that in 3.5 all creature types that are immune to SA for the ground of having no discernable anatomy ore not being a living creature list this immunity in the Type traits, and all creatures that are not one of those type but were still intended to be immune/resistant to SA have this immunity/resistance listed in their statblocks.

DMs that rule otherwise are simply wrong.

List where? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm)

"Ctrl-F: Sneak" can't find anything.

None of the type traits lists out Sneak Attack. Closest they get is "immune to criticals".

Edit:
\
Which is even more baffling to me since you obviously have enough System Knowledge to realize the usual options (but you missed the even better options for Constructs and Undead in the form of Weapon Crystals) to deal with such creatures..

Because Truedeath/Demolition crystals only have those effects when you spring out 6k/10k for the Greater version, on top of 18k for a +3 weapon. Which is to say, you're not gonna get them at early levels.

[Haldir]

The answer is simply that the conditions to deny sneak attack are in the rules, so the game itself subtly reinforces that behavior.

As a DM, I like having that tool in my belt. I can create danger and drama with it. I can make my players think tactically by hanging that threat over their heads. Not that I'm espousing threatening players, but I don't think you'd meet a DM out there who wouldn't agree that our job includes manipulation. It has to be that way for a story to function.

There is an argument to be made for the ruleset and player agency. A Fighters or Paladins damage is wholly contained within the actions the character takes. With a rogue, some of that agency is transferred to the target. -In combat, we can only be sure of what we can do. Relying on another to act a certain way is never certain.- Is it an inherent flaw in the design of a tabletop game? I don't think so. But I just admitted that my job is manipulation, sooo....

[PanosIs]

I think it comes down to a disparity between what people define a sneak attack as. It's more of a cognitive issue in my opinion than an issue of holding over stuff from previous editions. There's a great bit of difference between "I sneak attack slitting his throat - something that is quite hard to accomplish mid-battle and should carry appropriate restrictions" and "I take advantage of my opponent being distracted by the fighter to hit him when he doesn't expect it/isn't able to defend himself - something possible to happen all or most of the time mid combat".

The players handbook almost explicitely states that the second is the case and if you are looking to tweak that as a DM you have to A) make clear to your players what a sneak attack consists of B) take into consideration that the rogue class is balanced around getting a sneak attack around 80+% of the time, you never want to make a player feel weaker than his colleagues

[PanosIs]

None of the type traits lists out Sneak Attack. Closest they get is "immune to criticals".

As far as I remember any creature that is immune to criticals is also immune to Sneak Attack, might be wrong though, haven't played a lot of 3.5e/PF.

[djreynolds]

It seems apparent to me that getting sneak attack most of the time is the defining thing about a rogue. They won't always get it obviously, but they have multiple ways to make it a high likelihood in most cases. It seems to be part of the math just to keep them on par with melee who get multiple attacks.

Without going into details right away, I've seen SO MANY bizarre rule interpretations that seem intended to severely nerf rogues. Is it just me or does this seem like a trend?

A rogue can sneak attack once per turn.

While a cleric can use divine strike oncemail per their turn.

So a rogue can theoretically SA on any enemies turn.

I recommend before drawing up characters the DM understands the rules. Sage advice is great as a "told you so ", if DMs are running crappie games.

Now a good DM should be able fairly and tactically to limit your ability to SA.

Creating separation of party members to limit 5ft buddy rule.

Or teaming up baddies to limit swashbucklerso.

But if the DM is dumb enough to evoke an AoO and your pal is right there... too bad thems the rules.

As for assassin if you pull it off... you deserve that auto critical

[NNescio]

As far as I remember any creature that is immune to criticals is also immune to Sneak Attack, might be wrong though, haven't played a lot of 3.5e/PF.

In 3.5e, SA, Sudden Strike (Ninja), Skrimish (Scout), any source of "precision damage" (term later defined retroactively in the Rules Compendium) rely on striking the enemies' vitals. They also have specific language in the form of, e.g.:



[...] Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. [/...]



[...] and creatures immune to extra damage from critical hits are all immune to sudden strikes. [...]



[...] and creatures immune to extra damage from critical hits are not vulnerable to this additional damage [...]

And the summary in the RC:



A number of abilities in the game allow a creature to deal extra damage by striking a vital area. This category of abilities includes sneak attack and other abilities that work like it, such as a ninja’s sudden strike [...] For the sake of simplicity, the extra damage such abilities deal is referred to as precision damage. [...]

Precision damage applies only against living creatures that have discernible anatomies. Undead, constructs, deathless, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures are not subject to precision damage, and creatures that are not subject to critical hits are not subject to precision damage. [...]

So yes, immunity to crits in 3.5e also provides functional immunity to SA, but this is precisely because of one of the conditions for SA (along with SS, Skim, et al.) to activate is that the target NOT be immune to crits (itself an extension of the needing to hit the vitals part).

Creatures were generally not (if not never) listed down as being "immune to precision damage". Them being immune is just a consequence of how immunity to crits and the specific requirements to deal precision damage interacted with each other.
[

[Zombimode]

Because those highly-specific restrictions seem to be patently derived from the rules for the 3.5e Rogue SA?

I don't see it.

Lets go over the parts you have highlighted:

her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)

This describes one of the two conditions that make SA possible. When a creature is denied-dex-to-AC is not something up for interpretation.
I cannot see how you can derive such bizare restrictions as those mentioned in this thread.


A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies

This is just a reminder that not all creatures can be effected by SA damage. It does not create any new rules/restrictions. All creatures that are meant to be immune have this immunity mentioned on their statblock (a creature's type is part of the statblock).
This is how the 3.5 rules are laid out in general. It is an exception based rule set. There is a (rather small) set of general rules. Anything that happens in addition or alters the general rules is spelled out (sometimes not as clear as one would have hopped, and sometimes the general rules are somewhat hidden, but the principle holds).


or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach

Most of the time considerations of this are outside the abstracted scope of 3.5 combat. Remember, there is no facing and the occupied square are do not perfectly measure the space a creature fills, and creatures are not static even if they don't "move" in the sense that there representation on the battle map is moved.
Understanding this it is appearent that this line is there to handle edge cases where the narrative makes it clear that the rogue can not possibly reach a vital spot. Ie. for creatures larger then what is usually represented as a single creature in the ruleset.
For day-to-day combat this line is unimportant.

In particular it has no connection to:

The target must have a "weak-spot" and you have to know where it is (e.g. fighting a Devil, I was disallowed Sneak Attack because I failed a Religion check)

No such restriction can be derived at all from the 3.5 rules.



I have denied Sneak attacks against creatures with no obvious weak spots

Again, 3.5 is an exception based rule set. If a creature is supposed to be immune/resitant to SA it would say so in the statblock. A DM looking at a creatures Picture and saying "nope, can't SA that one" is doing it wrong (in 3.5).


against a giant statue that was 20 feet tall, the rogue couldn't sneak attack hitting the legs of the statue

The result of a too limited definition of "vital spot". Main ateries are quite vital and guess what runs through your legs. Same goes for joints and tendons.
Can't be truthfully derived from 3.5 since (again) if a creature would be difficult to SA based on it's size or physical make-up, it would mention that in the creatures description/statblock. That there are NO immunities/resistances vs. SA based on size in 3.5 should be quite telling.


Similarly, a rogue cannot sneak attack amorphous creatures and similar in my game.

Now we finally arrive at something that quite possibly could be a holdover from 3.5. And in this point I completely argee with you that the DM should wrap their head arround and accept the new rules.

[joaber]

If your DM "nerf" sneak attack because damage, well he's terrible in math. Show Ludic Savant's DPR calculator to him.
If he's nerfing because some thematic or logic question to him, you can show your points, if he keeps his opinion, you:
-don't play in his table
-don't play with rogue
-play in his table as rogue and suck at damage

[LordFluffy]

I'm running my first 5e Rogue in LMoP and I was surprised. Two of four of the party were down, the cleric closed with a mace and my Rogue hung back, flinging darts. Some very good damage rolls later and he'd been the main damage dealer for the encounter.

Given he was hitting harder than the fighter had been with her long bow, I can see where some GM's would get freaked out. But by comparison, the Rogue was doing no more than a dual weapon fighter with 2 short swords might. I think that it looks explosive, but when you compare the damage to other classes when they really get their class abilities going, it's not that overpowering.

Not taking into account multi-class shenanigans of course.

[Zombimode]

"Ctrl-F: Sneak" can't find anything.

None of the type traits lists out Sneak Attack. Closest they get is "immune to criticals".

Everything immune to critical hits is immune to SA as per the description of SA:

Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks



Because Truedeath/Demolition crystals only have those effects when you spring out 6k/10k for the Greater version, on top of 18k for a +3 weapon. Which is to say, you're not gonna get them at early levels.

Neither are the other methods. And yes, you have to jump through some hoops. It is a decision that falls into the responsibility of the Player: should they shell out a good chunk of Money to simply ignore a intended weakness of one of their class abilities? Or do they cope with the Situation in other ways. Such questions and decisions are not unique to SA users. And contrary to forum-truisms barring very specific campaigns SA users don't need to migitate SA's restrictions.



So yes, immunity to crits in 3.5e also provides functional immunity to SA, but this is precisely because of one of the conditions for SA (along with SS, Skim, et al.) to activate is that the target NOT be immune to crits (itself an extension of the needing to hit the vitals part).


No. Creatures immune to crits are immune to SA because it says so in the ability's description. You can't derive any other restrictions from that within the bounds of the rule set.

[Naanomi]

In 1e the attack had to be 'from behind' and use a 'club, dagger, or sword (of which rogues were only proficient in 1-handed swords)

In 2e the whole process got messy and hard to pull off; and were basically a 'once at the beginning of combat' situation at best

3e was a huge step towards *easier* backstab than before

[MrStabby]

The proportion of the time that SA should come into play may change by campaign. I am certainly not a fan of changing the rules or applying other conditions to sneak attack (although oddly enough I am happy to make broader changes - the P1 example of a big golem that cannot be sneak attacked in the foot, I would have given it resistance to physical damage below the knee).

I think that in my campaign rogues are a pretty powerful class and get sneak attacks on about 50% of their attacks. Between no advantage and alone, enemy imposing disadvantage, long range, one without darkvision, fighting in water, invisible enemies and so on there are a lot of ways to miss out on the ability.

The thing is that this goes for a lot of classes. Paladins or barbarians who have enemies that sit at range. Casters who chose firebolt as a cantrip fighting fire resistant enemies. Monks fighting things with good constitution saves...

If the rogue doesn't always get sneak attack it isn't wrong, just a reflection that it is an explicitly conditional ability not an always on ability like the cleric's divine strike. The damage is also not a commonly resisted damage if you can pick up some kind of magic weapon.

[Dalebert]

Can you provide an example of how a DM would deny sneak attack when it should be entitled?

The most recent was really shocking to me. A kobold lost it due to sunlight when he also had pack tactics and an ally adjacent to the enemy. The adv and dis should have cancelled out but the call was that he still had disadvantage despite also having advantage. Now that's incorrect and I later looked it up and proved it (PHB p.173).

What disturbs me is how casually they had nerfed a kobold from ever getting sneak attack in sunlight and also granted everyone a number of abilities to become completely immune to sneak attack just by imposing disadvantage somehow regardless of anything the rogue does to offset it, e.g. dodging, blur, etc.

Considering how defining sneak attack is to a rogue, that's really disturbing. Folks here seem to understand the math--that a rogue's sneak attack is necessary just for him to keep up with dmg of other melee (fighters, paladins, monks, etc.) Consider nerfing any other class as heavy-handedly. Imagine if you could take the dodge action to be completely immune to spells or a fighter's extra attacks.


I think that in my campaign rogues are a pretty powerful class and get sneak attacks on about 50% of their attacks. Between no advantage and alone, enemy imposing disadvantage, long range, one without darkvision, fighting in water, invisible enemies and so on there are a lot of ways to miss out on the ability.

I agree that those are contexts that would reasonably prevent sneak attacks unless and until the rogue made up for it somehow, but 50%? It's really hard to argue something so subjective as an estimage of when those situations happen and can't be effectively offset, like the rogue having hiding places so they can bonus-action-hide for advantage to offset disadvantage, but that number seems large to me.


The thing is that this goes for a lot of classes. Paladins or barbarians who have enemies that sit at range. Casters who chose firebolt as a cantrip fighting fire resistant enemies. Monks fighting things with good constitution saves...

Again, I don't see those things happening 50% of the time, but arguing about such subjective things in a game that I have not experienced seems pointless. *shrug* Also, mentioning the monk's stunning strike seems odd. We're just talking about a rogue keeping up with dmg. A monk doesn't have that limitation with regard to being able to strike 3 or 4 times in a turn at tier 2 while keeping their dex bonus with each strike.

[MrStabby]

Again, I don't see those things happening 50% of the time, but arguing about such subjective things in a game that I have not experienced seems pointless. *shrug* Also, mentioning the monk's stunning strike seems odd. We're just talking about a rogue keeping up with dmg. A monk doesn't have that limitation with regard to being able to strike 3 or 4 times in a turn at tier 2 while keeping their dex bonus with each strike.

I wouldn't say these things are happening 50% of the time, but these are phrased as being much less conditional than sneak attack so I would expect them to be more common anyway. Doing some ballpark calculations for paladin and their attacks at range:

Fight on average 4 rounds.
Most fights happen indoors or at night where enemies become aware of each other at reasonably short range. About half these can close to close combat on turn one. The others take a turn to close the gap - a turn where the paladin is not using their attack action (whilst those better equipped to fight at range may advance and shoot a bow at the same time). So say 1/3rds of fights have 1 round missed due to distance. I quite frequently use spells like entangle or web, and make liberal use of caltrops. Maybe rounds missed in 20% of fights - maybe two rounds in total due to these spells/effects (not usually more as high str characters can make these saves).

Of the roughly 1/3 of fights that happen outside there can be enemies kiting the party, flyers attacking from range, bogs, water, obstacles and walls. I find these combats tend to be longer - maybe 7 or 8 turns but divine smite might only be useful on 3 of them whilst the rest of the party is still able to act normally.

I get the paladin being able to use divine smite about 56% of the time, so a bit more than the rogue can use sneak attack but not a huge difference.

[GlenSmash!]

The most recent was really shocking to me. A kobold lost it due to sunlight when he also had pack tactics and an ally adjacent to the enemy. The adv and dis should have cancelled out but the call was that he still had disadvantage despite also having advantage. Now that's incorrect and I later looked it up and proved it (PHB p.173).

Your DM was bad. Bad DM! No pizza and Guinness for you!

With your advantage and disadvantage cancelling out you should have still gotten sneak attack from having an ally adjacent to your target.

[Tanarii]

The most recent was really shocking to me. A kobold lost it due to sunlight when he also had pack tactics and an ally adjacent to the enemy. The adv and dis should have cancelled out but the call was that he still had disadvantage despite also having advantage. Now that's incorrect and I later looked it up and proved it (PHB p.173).I find it interesting that you choose to interpret this as intentionally trying to deprive rogues of sneak attack (ie malicious) instead of a mis-ruling on the fly.

I can easily see myself or any other DM making that ruling. We all know disadvantage means no sneak attack is possible. It'd be easy for the question to crop up in game as to whether disadvantage is actually cancelled by advantage and actually no longer is there, or if both are still 'there' and the situation just cancels out for rolling purposes.

[Dalebert]

Can you provide an example of how a DM would deny sneak attack when it should be entitled?

Probably the most common one is almost completely disregarding another of a rogue's most defining features--being able to hide as a bonus action. This is a feature that's clearly intended to provide combat benefits. The only time a bonus action is relevant is in the heat of combat. Yet many DMs will almost consistently decree hiding in combat to be nigh impossible. This seems designed as a way to grant advantage and thus give another way to gain sneak attack. In the process you're giving up anything else you might have done with that bonus action like a 2nd attack from TWF or xbow expert.

It all seems to come down to understanding the math. Sneak Attack mostly just allows a rogue to keep up with everyone else. That's why he's been given a variety of tools to land it. It's already context-dependent to some degree but when you start nerfing those tools, he lags behind pretty badly.

[Tanarii]

Probably the most common one is almost completely disregarding another of a rogue's most defining features--being able to hide as a bonus action. This is a feature that's clearly intended to provide combat benefits. The only time a bonus action is relevant is in the heat of combat. Yet many DMs will almost consistently decree hiding in combat to be nigh impossible.Pop-up hiding is a huge point of contention with DMs. Trying to label that as "denying Sneak attack" shows your bias.

[Hrugner]

It's just part of the back and forth over rogues. Rogues have a bunch of tools for getting sneak attack nearly every round, but some rogues would rather use those tools for other things and still get their sneak attack. You have rogues who want to hide without cover or have advantage as well as sneak attack every time and that isn't really an expectation within the game. Rogue sneak attack should be available more often than not, but there's still some expectation that the rogue is investing more into their attack than just the attack.

[jas61292]

Other than pop-up hiding (a contentious subject, which I personally would not allow myself), I have never seen a DM deprive rogues of sneak attacks when it seems they should get them.

That said, even if they did a little bit, I wouldn't mind too much. People talk about how without sneak attack every round a rogue falls behind in DPR compared to the melee classes. But honestly, I don't think that is bad. D&D has three pillars, not just combat, and a rogue being somewhat worse than a fighter or barbarian in combat is fine, since they are significantly stronger than them in the non combat pillars.

[Biggstick]

I find it interesting that you choose to interpret this as intentionally trying to deprive rogues of sneak attack (ie malicious) instead of a mis-ruling on the fly.

I can easily see myself or any other DM making that ruling. We all know disadvantage means no sneak attack is possible. It'd be easy for the question to crop up in game as to whether disadvantage is actually cancelled by advantage and actually no longer is there, or if both are still 'there' and the situation just cancels out for rolling purposes.

Is there an actual clarification on this from Sage Advice? If you have Disadvantage and Advantage on the same attack roll, do they simply cancel each other out for attack roll purposes and exist, or do they straight up cancel each other out?

[Hrugner]

Is there an actual clarification on this from Sage Advice? If you have Disadvantage and Advantage on the same attack roll, do they simply cancel each other out for attack roll purposes and exist, or do they straight up cancel each other out?

It's in the PHB. If you have both advantage and disadvantage, then you have neither regardless of how many of each you have.

[tkuremento]

Is there an actual clarification on this from Sage Advice? If you have Disadvantage and Advantage on the same attack roll, do they simply cancel each other out for attack roll purposes and exist, or do they straight up cancel each other out?

I don't have the RAW on this but the RAI from what I can tell is it is just a normal roll and you pretend there is no advantage or disadvantage.

Edit: Ninja'd on that first point


Also on the subject of Sneak Attack, how do people feel about Inquisitive Rogues who can pass a check and then get Sneak Attack against one creature for a minute regardless of advantage or not. I both like and dislike it. I like it from an RP stance, but it feels perhaps a bit strong? I mean sure you spend a bonus action--or action if you wanted to for some reason--to use it but then it is just on for that minute.

[Dalebert]

Pop-up hiding is a huge point of contention with DMs.

What the Hell is hiding as a bonus action intended by the designers to be if not "pop-up" hiding?


Trying to label that as "denying Sneak attack" shows your bias.

Please educate me what exact bias this shows. That I think a character should get the features that he paid an opportunity cost to get?

I think the fact that DMs suddenly and arbitarily get hyper-realistic in this one case shows their bias. They have no problem pushing the "I believe" button with respect to someone conjuring things out of thin air or a monk running up walls or across water but "You hid in the middle of combat and thus got advantage on one attack? OMG, THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE!"

[Hrugner]

Inquisitive is nice, but the rogue is likely to want advantage as well and would be angling toward getting it regardless of whether or not this worked. It's a nice feature if you don't have a melee character supporting your rogue, but it isn't amazing by any measure. It's similar to swashbuckler but for ranged and it requires a roll.

[Dalebert]

"Pop-up hiding doesn't seem realistic to me so I'm just going to remove the bonus action hide from a rogue's abilities."

Can I do that with any feature I think is unrealistic? Your fighter can heal himself with a bonus action? I can't envision how that could work so no. Your monk can do as much damage as a long sword with her empty hand? That's absurd. No.

This... is... bullpoop. Why do rogues alone get this treatment?

[jas61292]

What the Hell is hiding as a bonus action intended by the designers to be if not "pop-up" hiding?



Please educate me what exact bias this shows. That I think a character should get the features that he paid an opportunity cost to get?

I think the fact that DMs suddenly and arbitarily get hyper-realistic in this one case shows their bias. They have no problem pushing the "I believe" button with respect to someone conjuring things out of thin air or a monk running up walls or across water but "You hid in the middle of combat and thus got advantage on one attack? OMG, THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE!"

The problem is that is doesn't necessarily function from RAW, and relies on an interpretation some people won't accept. If you are not behind some cover, someone can see you. The advantage from hiding is that the defender does not know where the attack is coming from. When you sneak up on someone out of combat, it is simple to say that they didn't notice you before you attacked.

But once in combat, the rules say creatures are considered aware of their surroundings. If you pop behind something and then pop back out, you are not actually going to be hidden when you make your attack, since you must come out from behind your cover to attack, and your target is aware of your presence. If you want to actually gain advantage again, you need to actually be unseen when attacking, and it is very simple and fair for a DM to rule that this requires some action beyond popping back out from behind the pillar that everyone knows you are standing behind.

[tkuremento]

Inquisitive is nice, but the rogue is likely to want advantage as well and would be angling toward getting it regardless of whether or not this worked. It's a nice feature if you don't have a melee character supporting your rogue, but it isn't amazing by any measure. It's similar to swashbuckler but for ranged and it requires a roll.

It allows me to make a build I've always wanted to test out though where EK3+/Inquisitive X, where you can use a bonus action to get sneak attack for a minute then throw a dagger that turn. You are bonded with the dagger so the following turns are bonus to recall the dagger, then throw again. And being EK you could also pick up booming blade for when you are in melee range, though you'd prefer to not be in melee range.

[ProphetSword]

As a DM, I do as much as I can to empower the Rogue in the party (which the player recognizes and appreciates). As a person who is teaching another old-school DM how to DM 5th Edition in his free time, I passed on the word that nerfing the rogue is a terrible idea.

This is really all we can do to combat these issues. Educate people who are wrong, and it might eventually stop.

[Dalebert]

But once in combat, the rules say creatures are considered aware of their surroundings.

In combat is the only time hiding as a bonus action applies. They explicitly gave rogues the ability to hide in combat. What's the point of that if not to gain the benefits of hiding?


If you pop behind something and then pop back out, you are not actually going to be hidden when you make your attack, since you must come out from behind your cover to attack, and your target is aware of your presence. If you want to actually gain advantage again, you need to actually be unseen when attacking, and it is very simple and fair for a DM to rule that this requires some action beyond popping back out from behind the pillar that everyone knows you are standing behind.

Under "Actions in Combat":
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. If you succeed , you gain certain benefits, as described in the “ Unseen Attackers and Targets” section later in this chapter.
[Emphasis mine]

How much more clear must the RAW be? Also, you don't reveal your location after hiding until after your attack hits or misses.

From later in the chapter:
"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

[Tanarii]

Of course a Rogue can Hide in combat as a Bonus action. He just needs to meet all the normal requirements for Hiding, per the side bar in the PHB. And that's where it gets contentious. Because the rules for Hiding are intentionally designed to give the DM huge flexibility in what meets the requirements for Hiding.

According to the designers intentional that this DM leeway exists. So that in one campaign your PC may be able to squat down behind a barrel or column exactly the width of your PC, and in another you might have to run behind a corner some distance, hide behind a large wagon, or disappear into the bushes / darkness.

There's other interpretations too, but the PHB is explicit: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The rest of Hiding sidebar leaves flexibility for the DM to choose how to interpret it.

(This is one of those situations in which another poster bludgeoned me with this point enough times until I understood what he meant. This intentionally isn't 3e or 4e, where it's all carefully defined and creates a bunch of weird edge cases. Instead a lot of it is left in the DMs hands, which is consistent with 5e's design philosophy.)

[Lolzyking]

Imagine you go behind a large pillar to hide, you plant to sneak attack with your bow after hiding behind it. In the heat of all the combat enemies understand you went back there, but they aren't expecting you to crouch down and fire the arrow from an odd angle at them, and because they lost direct sight of you while it occurred is the reason its a sneak attack.

[Dalebert]

There's other interpretations too, but the PHB is explicit: "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." The rest of Hiding sidebar leaves flexibility for the DM to choose how to interpret it.

Sure, but I've heard DMs say "He saw you go back there. He knows you're there." and that's essentially saying you have to already be hidden in order to hide. That's ridiculous. Similarly, it often amounts to no hiding once combat has begun. There's no facing so everyone knows where you are until you go into your hiding place and DMs treat that as "they know you're behind that thing. There's nowhere else you can be." *sigh* Well that's again akin to just making bonus action hide a null ability when it's clearly intended to allow hiding in combat, which means they knew where you were before you hid. Otherwise there'd be no need to hide!

As was pointed out, sure, they know what space you're in, but because you can do it as a bonus action, you use that moment of disorientation to pop out at a weird angle or just too quickly for them to evade your attack in the way they normally do. The idea is, yes, they know basically where you are but you are still unseen and unheard and gain the benefits of that status.

Consider this. The non-rogue tries the same thing without taking an action to properly hide. The enemy hears him loading his crossbow. Hears his pants scrunching as the squats down to fire from a different angle. The non-rogue is a little slow in aiming as he peeps around the corner. All this lacks the subtlety and speed to benefit from the hidden status and the attack is made normally. Now if he takes the time and effort and then waits for his next turn to fire, and assuming the enemy doesn't reposition to where he can see him behind the column before his next turn, he could gain the same benefit.

[Tanarii]

Sure, but I've heard DMs say "He saw you go back there. He knows you're there." and that's essentially saying you have to already be hidden in order to hide. That's ridiculous. Similarly, it often amounts to no hiding once combat has begun. There's no facing so everyone knows where you are until you go into your hiding place and DMs treat that as "they know you're behind that thing. There's nowhere else you can be." *sigh* Well that's again akin to just making bonus action hide a null ability when it's clearly intended to allow hiding in combat, which means they knew where you were before you hid. Otherwise there'd be no need to hide!

As was pointed out, sure, they know what space you're in, but because you can do it as a bonus action, you use that moment of disorientation to pop out at a weird angle or just too quickly for them to evade your attack in the way they normally do.
They said that because the PHB has something in it that allows them to make that interpretation: "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly," I don't personally agree with that interpretation, but that's where it comes from. And it allows you to become hidden if you start off behind something. (Edit: note this still allows Bonus Action hiding to be useful. Because you can Hide (bonus action) and then double move (or something else other than attack + move) on your turn. It's just nowhere near as useful as Attack + Hide every round.)

Personally, I allow Hiding if there's no way they can know what "space" you're in. That means you CAN do pop-up Hiding, provided the thing you're hiding behind, under, or in is sufficiently large enough, or there's another reason they might not be able to determine your precise location. Because the "not knowing what space you're in" rule is a carry-over from 3e & 4e rules interpretation anyway. Also because that's just the way I want it to work in my game. That's a RAW interpretation of Hiding. But there are plenty of other RAW interpretations of how it works, that's not the only one.

If I'm going to Hide in a game, I'll just ask the DM how it works in his game first. If I'm going to make a character that depends on it, I'll ask before I make the character. And I'm fine with either pop-up hiding being super easy, or being relatively hard. I'll just take it into account.

[PanosIs]

Personally, I allow Hiding if there's no way they can know what "space" you're in. That means you CAN do pop-up Hiding, provided the thing you're hiding behind, under, or in is sufficiently large enough, or there's another reason they might not be able to determine your precise location. Because the "not knowing what space you're in" rule is a carry-over from 3e & 4e rules interpretation anyway. Also because that's just the way I want it to work in my game. That's a RAW interpretation of Hiding. But there are plenty of other RAW interpretations of how it works, that's not the only one.


I agree with this, it doesn't make hiding too hard without going into the popping in and out behind the same barrel. This is exactly how I run stealth in my own game.

[Bohandas]

Theres also some cognitive dissonance for some people when a rogue can sneak attack without really even trying to be sneaky about it.
Yeah. It really ought to be called "cheap shot" or somethig like that.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Can you provide an example of how a DM would deny sneak attack when it should be entitled? The rules seem pretty clear. If the rogue has advantage or there is an ally nearby, they are entitled to sneak attack dice.

Requiring a proper 3.5-style flank. Sneak Attack immunities.


Yeah, see, I don't think this is true at all. In 3.5 the condition for when sneak attack applies are Crystal clear. They are also quite permissive (Just need a flanking buddy and you're good. Target is forced to make a Balance check without haven 5 ranks in Balance? Sneak attack-able for one round. Etc.).
I have no idea what kind of hold-over from 3.5 should result in limiting 5e sneak attacks.

In 3.5, you and your flanking buddy need to be on exact opposite sides of the same target, and moving within someone's threat range (from one adjacent square to another adjacent square) provoked attacks of opportunity. In 5e, you just need to be attacking a target your "flanking buddy" is within melee attacking range of; you yourself don't even need to be in melee range of the target, but if you are, movement within melee range doesn't provoke opportunity attacks. This allows for much freer combat positioning for the melee rogue, but it creates an entire option for the ranged rogue that never existed: for the ranged rogue, the only way to Sneak Attack a target was if they were denied their Dexterity bonus to AC, which ranged Rogues couldn't do without level/feat investment.

Then there are sneak attack immunities, which were conferred to creatures without a Constitution score (such as undead and constructs), as well as creatures without a discernible anatomy (such as oozes and plants). In this edition, there are no such type/subtype restrictions; if it has hit points, you can Sneak Attack it.