Pop-up from hide advantage confirmed

[Dalebert]

This is a great thread that confirms for me at least the intent that a rogue should be able to use in-combat hide to frequently get advantage, at least for ranged attacks if rarely for melee. I feel like DMs are constantly eager to nerf rogue features to pointlessness. One of those features is bonus action hide.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/

[LeonBH]

I agree Rogues should be able to Hide frequently in combat. But I find it silly if they go behind the same wall, use the Hide action, then attack with advantage for being unseen 10 times in a combat. Someone will catch on eventually. Or, they can't hide when there is no cover. It's a push and pull, the DM must adjudicate sensibly while the players must Hide in sensible hiding spots.

[pwykersotz]

I agree Rogues should be able to Hide frequently in combat. But I find it silly if they go behind the same wall, use the Hide action, then attack with advantage for being unseen 10 times in a combat. Someone will catch on eventually. Or, they can't hide when there is no cover. It's a push and pull, the DM must adjudicate sensibly while the players must Hide in sensible hiding spots.

Yeah, that's exactly what Crawford says there. Foes can stop falling for it.

[Dalebert]

Yeah, that's exactly what Crawford says there. Foes can stop falling for it.

Yes, but he didn't say that automatically cancels the advantage they get. He said they can move to a vantage point where they can see the rogue thereby ending their hidden condition. The example was a rogue hiding around a corner and the enemy going behind the corner themselves where they can see the rogue.

[Hrugner]

That seems about as clear as possible, but I imagine folks adamantly against hiding to begin with will ignore this anyway. Giving disadvantage to the hide check if you're reusing the same cover seems like a good rule though.

[pwykersotz]

Yes, but he didn't say that automatically cancels the advantage they get. He said they can move to a vantage point where they can see the rogue thereby ending their hidden condition. The example was a rogue hiding around a corner and the enemy going behind the corner themselves where they can see the rogue.

Yes, I agree with this as well. It's a good conversation, I'm glad you linked it.

[Malifice]

That thread clarifies the invisible argument were having in the other thread. Invisibility doesn't make you hidden. It's no different from becoming unseen via any other method. You still need to take the hide action to become hidden.

I admit Crawford is using a slightly more liberal interpretation of Hiding. I generally rule if a creature can see you going into hiding then you can't hide from that creature (so a PC or monster who ducks behind a solitary pillar in full view of the enemy can't take the hide action once there).

I'll consider this ruling and maybe be a bit more liberal with hide attempts.

[FilthyLucre]

This is a great thread that confirms for me at least the intent that a rogue should be able to use in-combat hide to frequently get advantage, at least for ranged attacks if rarely for melee. I feel like DMs are constantly eager to nerf rogue features to pointlessness. One of those features is bonus action hide.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/

This doesn't go far enough for me. Say your Monk/Ninja is hiding in the rafters of a building, and a guard is walking by beneath him, he drops down while the guards back is still turned and moves in to strike - he doesn't have advantage/is no longer hidden?? That runs completely counter intuitive to the very concept of a sneak attack.

[Malifice]

Incidentally I've always ruled a hidden creature that snipes around the corner or sneaks up on a foe unawares retains advantage as does one that springs out and attacks a creature adjacent to his hiding spot.

Once the attack is resolved the creature is no longer hidden. Barring missing and having the skulker fest of course.

[Malifice]

This doesn't go far enough for me. Say your Monk/Ninja is hiding in the rafters of a building, and a guard is walking by beneath him, he drops down while the guards back is still turned and moves in to strike - he doesn't have advantage/is no longer hidden?? That runs completely counter intuitive to the very concept of a sneak attack.

As he us still unseen he retains advantage/ hidden.

Once the attack is resolved he is no longer hidden.

[LeonBH]

I admit Crawford is using a slightly more liberal interpretation of Hiding. I generally rule if a creature can see you going into hiding then you can't hide from that creature (so a PC or monster who ducks behind a solitary pillar in full view of the enemy can't take the hide action once there).

I like the idea of Sam Fisher-style hiding, as in Splinter Cell Conviction. The enemies know your last known position, but once you've moved out of sight, you can hide again and then move out of that hiding location. The enemies will still investigate where they last saw you.

[Arkhios]

I have an assassin with a longbow in my group, and I've run the situations so that if the assassin hides before combat and shoots from a vantage point, she can hide in the same spot as long as no one has spotted her yet. That's how I see being a sniper anyway.
You can easily duck behind cover after you've fired the arrow, then stand up again to shoot next turn, rinse and repeat until someone notices your whereabouts.

[Tanarii]

Whelp, there goes the reasonableness of the 'no hiding behind something where it's blindingly obvious where you are' DM positions. And DM flexibility on stealth. Back to crazy unreasonable situations like not being able to know where a rogue is who's literally 5ft away from you behind the only barrel in the center of a 200 ft wide empty chamber.


I have an assassin with a longbow in my group, and I've run the situations so that if the assassin hides before combat and shoots from a vantage point, she can hide in the same spot as long as no one has spotted her yet. That's how I see being a sniper anyway.
You can easily duck behind cover after you've fired the arrow, then stand up again to shoot next turn, rinse and repeat until someone notices your whereabouts.
That should require the Skulker feat, shouldn't it?

[Slayn82]

Whelp, there goes the reasonableness of the 'no hiding behind something where it's blindingly obvious where you are' DM positions. And DM flexibility on stealth. Back to crazy unreasonable situations like not being able to know where a rogue is who's literally 5ft away from you behind the only barrel in the center of a 200 ft wide empty chamber.

The rogue is technically the only class that can do this kind of stuff. I think it's ok. This rulling also leaves room for plenty of counters: perception checks and readied attacks, AOE spells, Faerie Fire, and charging the last know position of the enemy for LOS. Personally, I suggest the Shatter spell to punish rogues and destroy his cover.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'll be a contrarian and say this this exchange adds very little to the existing body of discussion on pop-up roguery. Mainly it gives pop-up advocates something to point at and say, "If you read this in a certain way and ignore that it's a shallow disjointed Twitter exchange with no added analysis or rationale, Crawford says we are correct."

"Hiding behind cover is a legitimate use of Cunning Action" - not generally disputed, doesn't address the specific problem of hiding in a known position.

"Enemies who know your position can move to where they see you" - not generally disputed, doesn't specifically address the question of whether an enemy must move around a corner in order to effectively retain the knowledge of someone being behind it. If the enemy who didn't "fall for it" cannot just stand and wait for the known rogue to visibly pop out again, then Hiding becomes a psychic ability - changing nothing about the rogue's physical circumstances, but erasing knowledge in the minds of others nearby. Not a compelling reason for pop-up detractor DMs to change their games in my opinion.

"You can attack while hidden and gain the benefit" - not generally disputed, you can attack and still be hidden in the right circumstances. The question is about cases where you need two-way line of sight to attack.

"You're not still hidden if you 'run out'" - so is that only if you "run" out, not "pop" out? Or can "move" be substituted for "run"? Because then obviously pop-up detractors can invoke this as evidence. Can we get a clarification on that clarification?

"A rogue can attack with advantage when hiding" - not generally disputed, the question is whether you're still attacking with advantage if you must become seen in order to attack, or if breaking hiding happens as soon as you "move out" - become visible.

[jaappleton]

Whelp, there goes the reasonableness of the 'no hiding behind something where it's blindingly obvious where you are' DM positions. And DM flexibility on stealth. Back to crazy unreasonable situations like not being able to know where a rogue is who's literally 5ft away from you behind the only barrel in the center of a 200 ft wide empty chamber.


That should require the Skulker feat, shouldn't it?

No, those don't go up in smoke.

Because its your table. You can rule however you wish.

[Dalebert]

Whelp, there goes the reasonableness of the 'no hiding behind something where it's blindingly obvious where you are' DM positions. And DM flexibility on stealth. Back to crazy unreasonable situations like not being able to know where a rogue is who's literally 5ft away from you behind the only barrel in the center of a 200 ft wide empty chamber.

This is a straw man. Yes, you know where the rogue is but that's irrelevant to what being hidden means, i.e. "unseen and unheard". Yes, you know where he is and that means...

* You can attack him and you won't automatically miss him from targeting the completely wrong location.
* You could use an area effect and be confident that he will be inside that area because you know where he is.
* You could change position such that he will no longer be hidden from the new perspective and thus no longer gain the benefits of being hidden.

However, because he's hidden (unseen and unheard) that means...

* You will have disadvantage attacking him
* He will have advantage on his next attack against you

The fact you know where he is doesn't negate the straight-up mechanical benefits he gained from the hide action (or bonus action).

[Dalebert]

"A rogue can attack with advantage when hiding" - not generally disputed, the question is whether you're still attacking with advantage if you must become seen in order to attack, or if breaking hiding happens as soon as you "move out" - become visible.

Re-read it. This specific case was addressed unambiguously by Crawford.

Danny: my main problem is can a rogue attack with advantage thanks to hiding."

JC: Yes

Danny: say if the rogue has to come from behind corner/tree/cover to get a line of sight, that's ok?

JC: Yes

[Tanarii]

This is a straw man.It absolutely is not. It is the entire POINT of the debate about pop-up hiding.


* You will have disadvantage attacking him
* He will have advantage on his next attack against you

The fact you know where he is doesn't negate the straight-up mechanical benefits he gained from the hide action (or bonus action).He has those benefits without the hide action, because he is also an unseen attacker. The only thing the hide action adds is removing knowledge of where you are is with certainty.

(Note that's not the same thing as saying it's the only way to remove certainty, but that's a different thread already.)

[Dalebert]

It absolutely is not. It is the entire POINT of the debate about pop-up hiding.
...
He has those benefits without the hide action, because he is also an unseen attacker. The only thing the hide action adds is removing knowledge of where you are is with certainty.

I want to be clear on whether we even disagree and if so, about what exactly. Here are two scenarios and how I would rule. Tell me if and when you would disagree with my call as a DM

1) Wizard ducks around corner and has total cover. Doesn't take hide action. Next round, he pokes his head and hand out to shoot a firebolt. Doesn't get advantage.

2) Rogue ducks around corner and bonus-action hides. Next round, he pokes his head and hand crossbow out and fires with advantage. (Crawford agrees with this decision per the quote above.)

[Tanarii]

1) Wizard ducks around corner and has total cover. Doesn't take hide action. Next round, he pokes his head and hand out to shoot a firebolt. Doesn't get advantage.He either gets advantage as an unseen attacker, or he doesn't because he's seen as soon as he sticks his head out.


2) Rogue ducks around corner and bonus-action hides. Next round, he pokes his head and hand crossbow out and fires with advantage. (Crawford agrees with this decision per the quote above.)He either gets advantage as an unseen attacker, or he doesn't because he's seen as soon as he sticks his head out.

I agree Crawford seems to be ruling that both will get advantage.

All the Hide action does, if successful, is remove certainty about your location.

Edit: okay, I admit that lack of certainty might be determined by a DM to mean that EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A SEEN ATTACKER, you still get advantage because you were hidden when you stick your head out. But IMO that's irrelevant, or at least a subset of the debate of what it means to take the Hide action in combat, which is all about opponents not knowning where you are.

[Specter]

The point is not whether the attacker has an idea of where you are; if there's only a tree to hide behind, of course he knows you're there. The point is to catch your opponent off-guard when you come out to fire at a certain angle. Nobody here played the sniping battles in Metal Gear Solid?

[Dalebert]

I agree Crawford seems to be ruling that both will get advantage.

Not at all. All he ruled on with any certainty is that if you successfully hide and then move just enough to get line of sight, you still gain advantage. He didn't rule on a case of just getting cover. Would he also rule that getting behind total cover and just poking your head out to shoot grants advantage? It's... possible, I guess, but we don't know because that case wasn't addressed. The question was about pop-up hiding.

[Hrugner]

But IMO that's irrelevant, or at least a subset of the debate of what it means to take the Hide action in combat, which is all about opponents not knowning where you are.

Is an opponent not knowing where you are an explicitly mentioned component of being hidden? From what I can see, in order to defeat the hidden condition, they need to witness your location by some sense and can't merely deduce it.

[Tanarii]

The point is not whether the attacker has an idea of where you are; if there's only a tree to hide behind, of course he knows you're there. The point is to catch your opponent off-guard when you come out to fire at a certain angle. Nobody here played the sniping battles in Metal Gear Solid?The point of hiding is whether the enemy has any idea where you are.


Is an opponent not knowing where you are an explicitly mentioned component of being hidden? From what I can see, in order to defeat the hidden condition, they need to witness your location by some sense and can't merely deduce it.
Yes. It is explicitly mentioned in several places, and is the primary purpose of hiding.

[Hrugner]

The point of hiding is whether the enemy has any idea where you are.


Yes. It is explicitly mentioned in several places, and is the primary purpose of hiding.

I just read what it says in the players handbook, and it all focuses on direct observation through sight and hearing.

[Tanarii]

I just read what it says in the players handbook, and it all focuses on direct observation through sight and hearing.
Not sure what you mean. Those are the prerequisites for hiding, you can't be directly observers or heard.

But hiding is about not giving away your position and them having to guess your location. see the PHB Hiding sidebar, and unseen targets rules. (Page 177 & 194 respectively)

[Hrugner]

Not sure what you mean. Those are the prerequisites for hiding, you can't be directly observers or heard.

But hiding is about not giving away your position and them having to guess your location. see the PHB Hiding sidebar, and unseen targets rules. (Page 177 & 194 respectively)

Right, but in the unseen targets section it mentions that guessing the targets location doesn't reveal them. This being the case, we see that the target not being observed is the only requirement rather than also not knowing their location.

[Dalebert]

The meaning of "hidden" in 5e is being both unseen and unheard. You have to be unseen to be able to hide which amounts to "you need a hiding place". Whether the enemy knows your location is irrelevant to whether you are, in fact, both unseen and unheard by your enemy. That additional requirement is nowhere I've seen as far as gaining the mechanical benefit of unseen attacker. They might guess your location correctly, maybe even because there's only one place you could reasonably be, but you're still hidden and gain the mechanical benefits accordingly. And Crawford just confirmed, at least by designer intent even if they failed to spell it out well in the PHB, that you retain the benefit even if you move just enough to gain line of sight to attack. It's confirmed that attacking then reveals your location so you only gain the benefit for that one attack.

So my response to "But he knows where you are." in a combat situation is

"That's fine. I just wanted to throw him off enough to impose disadvantage on his attacks and so I could get advantage on my next attack." *shrug*

Out of combat, I probably hope my enemy doesn't know where I am or even that I'm in the vicinity at all. In combat, all I can usually hope for is that adv/dis combo.

[Tanarii]

In combat, all I can usually hope for is that adv/dis combo.
Obviously I disagree with the rest of your post, for reasons already stated. But I don't think we can do other anything than disagree on those points.

But the 'usually' in this point only ho,da true if there's one specific spot you can be, like the barrel situation I outlined. If you hide while invisible, or in a large area of concealment / obscurement (fog cloud, in bushes or among other heavy foliage, or darkness, etc) or behind large cover (a wagon, table, a bunch of boxes, behind a corner where you may have moved away from the corner itself) then they can't know where you are. Which is my point. That's what hidden does For you.

The advantage / disadvantage part just comes from being unseen. Per the unseen attackers and targets rule.

Edit: that said, I concede that JC is explicitly saying if you are hidden, you can partially reveal yourself (ie lean out from nbehind cover) to attack and retain the advantage for that attack. Direct implication is you can't do that without Hiding first. That has separate implications from it being known or not known where you are if you cannot be anywhere else.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Re-read it. This specific case was addressed unambiguously by Crawford.

As I said, there's the opportunity for that reading. But if we're not reading the exchange in the context of the whole discussion on pop-up roguery, then it's nonsensical.

"The rules say I get advantage on attacks if I'm unseen. But can I also get advantage if I'm hidden and seen?"

"Yes."

I'm not holding my breath for errata to that effect.

[Malifice]

He either gets advantage as an unseen attacker, or he doesn't because he's seen as soon as he sticks his head out.

No he doesn't; hes hidden.

He retains the benefits of being unseen and hidden until he makes his attack roll. It is only after that attack is resolved that he's revealed.

So a hidden rogue behind a tree can take a shot around the corner of the tree and remain hidden and gain advantage. Once that attack is resolved (hit or miss) the rogue is no longer hidden.

Unless the rogue had the skulker feet and missed, in which case he remains hidden.

It is a different story if the rogue ran 20 m out in the open.

[Tanarii]

No he doesn't; hes hidden.

He retains the benefits of being unseen and hidden until he makes his attack roll. It is only after that attack is resolved that he's revealed.thats not in the rules anywhere.

Edit: JC just tweet-ruled its true. But the 5e rules don't say anything one way or the other about it. (It was that way in 3e and 4e though.)

[Malifice]

thats not in the rules anywhere.

Yes it is. When attacking from hiding you don't reveal your position until after the attack roll is made.

If lying on a roof in a sniping position watching down the road I can be hidden.

I think you're forgetting the clear errata. You dont need to be totally unseen, the question is whether or not enemy creatures can see you 'clearly enough'.

A rogue hidden behind a tree can peer around observing things and remain hidden. A sniper concealed in the bushes getting heavy concealment or behind a fallen log, or on a rooftop, can peer out without ceasing to be hidden. A person hiding around a corner can peer around and snap off a shot while retaining the benefits of being hidden, right up until after the attack is resolved (hit or miss).

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think you're forgetting the clear errata. You dont need to be totally unseen, the question is whether or not enemy creatures can see you 'clearly enough'.

But then what does hiding have to do with it?

Rogue stands behind corner - hides by spending an abstract action but actually doing nothing - pops out "just enough", fires with advantage at someone who knew they were there because they're not seen "clearly enough" and apparently that's not a DM call when it comes to pop-up rogues?

Wizard stands behind corner - does not hide - pops out "just enough" and fires no less unseen - but does not get advantage because they don't have psionic mind-clouding powers?

If the idea is that abstract hidden-ness causes unseen-ness to cling to a creature for as long as it takes to execute an action, that's a whole new rule that needs to be spelled out, not roundaboutly hinted at in tweets. (And then I'm not talking about what JC is doing answering questions, but how we selectively infer new rules and rulings from those answers.)

[Malifice]

But then what does hiding have to do with it?

Rogue stands behind corner - hides by spending an abstract action but actually doing nothing


The rogue isn't using an abstract action. He's ducking behind that corner (and back out again to attack) quietly and stealthily while concealing signs of his passage. Waiting for opponents to be distracted, moving quietly, sticking to the shadows, ensuring his shadow does not just out around the other side of the corner etc. All of the myriad things that the stealth skill covers.

For the record I run my games a little tighter than what JC is saying here. I don't allow anyone to take the hide action if a creature reasonably knows where you are hiding (DMs call).

An example would be if Bob and Alice are fighting in roof that contains a single pillar. I wouldn't allow Bob or Alice to run behind that pillar in full view of the other and take the hide action behind it.

Now if Bob or Alice ran behind the pillar then misty stepped elsewhere I would allow them to take the hide action in the new position. Or even if they just misty stepped behind the pillar.

I run hiding a little like the game of hide and seek. If I am the seeker and I watch you crawl under a bed and hide then you are not hidden from me. If on the other hand I close my eyes and count down from 10, and you crawl under the bed while my eyes are closed, then you can be hidden from me under the bed.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The rogue isn't using an abstract action. He's ducking behind that corner (and back out again to attack) quietly and stealthily while concealing signs of his passage. Waiting for opponents to be distracted, moving quietly, sticking to the shadows, ensuring his shadow does not just out around the other side of the corner etc. All of the myriad things that the stealth skill covers.

But then you're adding situational flavour justification that some pop-up advocates would not want to need to rely on. A better test of the supposed rule would be a scenario like: rogue and wizard pop behind the same corner, some time passes, rogue hides, some time passes, orc sentry is literally doing nothing but look down the corridor towards the corner, rogue and wizard both pop out and attack. Now is there a technical difference?

Judging by your pillar example, you and I seem to agree that there are cases where the undisputed printed rule (unseen means advantage) cannot be reasonably stretched in favour of pop-up (visible doesn't mean seen).

[Zalabim]

But then you're adding situational flavour justification that some pop-up advocates would not want to need to rely on. A better test of the supposed rule would be a scenario like: rogue and wizard pop behind the same corner, some time passes, rogue hides, some time passes, orc sentry is literally doing nothing but look down the corridor towards the corner, rogue and wizard both pop out and attack. Now is there a technical difference?
Every. ****ing. Time. There's a discussion about hiding in combat someone asks how that would work if they were not in combat. Every time. It does not ****ing matter. This does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand. But to answer your question, both characters are already hiding when the sentry comes by.

Hide is an action you take in combat to go from not-hidden to hidden in combat. In combat, you can't Hide when a creature can see you. When you cannot be seen, you can try to Hide. Once you are hidden, you remain hidden, using the same stealth result, until your position is revealed. You reveal your own position after you attack, make noise (vague), or can be seen clearly (errata).

In practical terms this means that, in combat, if you can find somewhere you can be totally obscured (heavy obscurement or full cover) you can Hide and then if you can find somewhere that you can see an enemy while still being somewhat concealed (light obscurement, partial cover) you can attack that with advantage as an unseen attacker. Halflings, Elves, Rangers, and Skulkers have abilities that can let them Hide despite being less than totally obscured to begin with.

This explains why being able to hide as a bonus action is a useful ability (DMG calls it the equivalent to +4 to hit and +4 AC on a monster) and why being able to hide while only lightly obscured is a useful ability while giving the errata an effect.

I'm not saying there's no other way to do it. I'm only saying this fits with all the available information.

[Arkhios]

I have an assassin with a longbow in my group, and I've run the situations so that if the assassin hides before combat and shoots from a vantage point, she can hide in the same spot as long as no one has spotted her yet. That's how I see being a sniper anyway.
You can easily duck behind cover after you've fired the arrow, then stand up again to shoot next turn, rinse and repeat until someone notices your whereabouts.
That should require the Skulker feat, shouldn't it?

No, I believe you can do that just fine without Skulker. Skulker lets you hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding, such as behind curtains, or maybe within crowd, that sort of thing. But hiding behind a crenellation of a tower just after you've made your attack? Fair game in my opinion. Unless the observer can see through walls, of course.

I mean, what it takes from you? Dropping prone doesn't require an action as far as I know, standing up takes at most half of your movement, but since you have no intention of moving from the spot, that's pretty much a moot point.
Now, the act of hiding: An assassin (also a rogue) can use Bonus Action to Hide with Cunning Action.

So, this is how it goes: The rogue starts behind a wall, or crenellation, or whatever else solid cover. She peeks behind the cover and uses an Action to Attack, then moves/drops back behind the cover, with observer having no chance of seeing through it -> easily can use Bonus Action to Hide.

I really don't see any reason for the Skulker feat to be able to do that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Every. ****ing. Time. There's a discussion about hiding in combat someone asks how that would work if they were not in combat. Every time. It does not ****ing matter. This does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand.But to answer your question, both characters are already hiding when the sentry comes by.

The scenario was meant to play out in tactical time, with the sentry watching. If you wish, going behind cover, taking the hide action, and leaving cover need only happen in contiguous but separate rounds; the main point is that they don't need to be simultaneous, complicating flavour justifications framing them as an integrated manoeuvre.

I assume you're not questioning that of two people behind an obstacle, one can be hidden in a technical sense and one not. The potential oddity of this is not particular to pop-up sniping, but it's not surprising that it should often be dragged into the picture when people use hiddenness to justify why pop-up sniping works generally. The question must be allowed: what if you logically cannot remain unseen to attack, however well hidden you were before? Just like if people use hand crossbows as flavour justification, the question must be expected: what about everything else?


In practical terms this means that, in combat, if you can find somewhere you can be totally obscured (heavy obscurement or full cover) you can Hide and then if you can find somewhere that you can see an enemy while still being somewhat concealed (light obscurement, partial cover) you can attack that with advantage as an unseen attacker.

I don't disagree with any of that (in or out of combat; I'm not sure there is a huge distinction). My issue is with granting blanket advantage when attacking from hiddenness even in cases where attacking necessitates becoming visible and seen. There are ways that a rule to that effect could be formulated, but what's been said so far falls short of this.

[mephnick]

As long as the Hide action is used I have no problem with pop up attacking because D&D is a game and part of the game balance is that rogues (most likely to do it) get sneak attack almost every turn anyway. Dismantling the Hide action, which is already difficult to use, due to "realism" is pointless. What's the worst case scenario? A rogue burns his BA every round to hide behind a barrel and gets sneak attack every turn? OH NO. How will my game recover..oh wait he'd be getting sneak attack every turn doing literally anything else because that's how the class plays. Who cares? If he pops up from an isolated position it takes like a turn for a monster to track him down. Or an action for something to explode him and his cover. Letting a character pop out and make an attack before giving away his position isn't a big deal. I think using the same terms in the RAW over and over is what the problem is. It seems like everyone is focusing on the RAW term "unseen" when they should have just used a more flexible term like "unpredictable", but we know how WotC likes to carelessly throw terms around. Like yeah, you're pretty sure a dude with a crossbow is back there, but you're in combat and can't focus on exactly when he's going to attack so they still get advantage even though you may see their face for half a second before the quarrel hits you.


But then you're adding situational flavour justification that some pop-up advocates would not want to need to rely on. A better test of the supposed rule would be a scenario like: rogue and wizard pop behind the same corner, some time passes, rogue hides, some time passes, orc sentry is literally doing nothing but look down the corridor towards the corner, rogue and wizard both pop out and attack. Now is there a technical difference?

I don't get it. They're both hiding because they've described actions that a DM would make them roll stealth checks for. Outside of combat you don't get to choose whether you roll a stealth check or not, you describe what you're doing and I tell you to make a stealth check. If they both beat the guard's perception check they can both attack with advantage once initiative is rolled. The rogue is more likely to pass the check and gets a better result (sneak attack, assassinate) and the wizard gets advantage on his weakass firebolt or whatever. But they both are attacking from hidden positions and get advantage.

[Slayn82]

Whenever the rogue attacks from stealth, sniping his enemy from range, and then uses his bonus action to hide, he isn't jumping screaming "SNEAK ATTACK" and returning to his cover.

He is starting from an unseen position, either because there's enough obscuring for his stealth, or from some good cover. Then he is choosing the best moment to make his shot, when the enemy is unaware, getting the advantage.

With the bonus action, immediately, he returns to his hiding spot, that was previously unknown to his target. This is a opposed Stealth vs. Perception check. If the enemy fails, he didn't perceive the rogue's position of attack and subsequent return to the safe spot. Maybe one of his allies did, and that ally can attack the rogue or can help him to spot it.

The target should have a general idea of where the attack came from, and may even get an advantage on his perception check if the rogue keeps attacking from the same spot.

It's a good idea for Target to find cover of his own, try to hide yourself or ready an action to attack the rogue when he attacks [win that perception vs stealth check first, or probably attack the same spot someone that (maybe) found the rogue is aiming (If I'm the DM I would allow the attack with disadvantage - but that may be a decoy or an innocent third party)]. That attack will also have to deal with any cover the rogue got. It's probably easier to Fireball that area - although Faerie Fire also is AOE spell, so just a general location will do nicely. If the place is just full of shadows, even Dancing Lights will help to spot that guy.

At least, send a bunch of guys there to investigate! Or equalize things by getting some way to block the Rogue's line of sight, by crossing a door into another room, entering a tent, obscuring mist, Invisibility, Darkness, burnings a pile of saw dust in a basket to make smoke, etc.

Meanwhile, that Rogue may choose to move around and shoot from another place, or make his escape.

In the middle of combat, involving multiple characters... most of those options still are on the table.

On a side note, notice that Drow/Dark Elves have as racial abilities Faerie Fire, Darkness and Dancing Lights. They make excellent bodyguards at night. Hard to Charm, sleep little, excellent senses.

Hawk/Owl/Dog familiars, summoned or trained animals also are good at finding hidden creatures.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Dismantling the Hide action, which is already difficult to use, due to "realism" is pointless.

I don't know whether anyone is doing that. I'm seeing half a dozen people offer up as many different situational flavour justifications for pop-up sniping. Just because I'm addressing the justifications offered it doesn't mean I necessarily take the opposite stance on realism in each specific case, it means I question that they add up to an actual rule.

I am a rogue lover myself, and more power would be great I guess? and every other table can adopt whatever power boosts they want for any type of character? and we can use the "it's not gonna break anything" argument for pretty much whatever? but I don't really care about any of that here. "Sneak attack is so easy so bah why not make it easier" is a non-argument as far as I'm concerned; exchange the rogue with a non-sneak-attacker if it helps, the rules are supposed to apply to them as well.


Like yeah, you're pretty sure a dude with a crossbow is back there, but you're in combat and can't focus on exactly when he's going to attack so they still get advantage even though you may see their face for half a second before the quarrel hits you.

Does it take less time to move out, aim and fire than it takes to become visually aware of the shooter, though? I would personally find it extremely hard to dodge a projectile coming from someone who was just standing out in the open and about to fire at me at any moment - and they don't get advantage. Whatever it is that doesn't incur advantage when you can see the archer should still apply if you can't see the archer right now but you do know once they appear the shot will be fired within a ten-degree field of view just the same. It also does little to explain why it's hidden-ness and not any unseen-ness that enables pop-up sniping, which is something it has in common with a lot of these flavour justifications. "It's just so chaotic and you can't keep track of everyone and you can't look everywhere" - all that could be said to apply to non-hidden, even non-unseen skirmishers under equally chaotic conditions. Do those take pains to fire only at people who are specifically getting ready to dodge them?


I don't get it. They're both hiding because they've described actions that a DM would make them roll stealth checks for.

Hm. Is it your position that the wizard cannot remain unhidden behind the wall, even without taking the Hide action (or taking it and failing)? I still don't think that would be very relevant to the question of pop-up sniping, though.


he is choosing the best moment to make his shot, when the enemy is unaware

he returns to his hiding spot, that was previously unknown to his target.

The target should have a general idea of where the attack came from

Meanwhile, that Rogue may choose to move around and shoot from another place

Note that the disputed case primarily concerns when the rogue's position is "known" (in the sense that it's fixed, such as behind a solitary barrel or behind the only corner at the end of a corridor, though they may be technically hidden in that place) and the target may be doing very little but watch for their reappearance. So again, this characterization of battlefield shenanigans is nice, but situational.

[Slayn82]

Note that the disputed case primarily concerns when the rogue's position is "known" (in the sense that it's fixed, such as behind a solitary barrel or behind the only corner at the end of a corridor, though they may be technically hidden in that place) and the target may be doing very little but watch for their reappearance. So again, this characterization of battlefield shenanigans is nice, but situational.

In this case, what is, in terms of game mechanics, doing very little but watch for (the rogue) reappearance? It can be:

I ready an attack against the rogue in the moment he exposes himself (allows you to attack the rogue, no disadvantage for you, he keeps the advantage);

I take the dodge action (cancels the Rogue's advantage).

Can you imagine something else, other than attempt to destroy his cover/camouflage?

[HumanSuit]

I don't know why it has to be so black and white. It doesn't say anywhere that any one creature has to think a certain way. And even a beast with low intelligence is going to be able to put it together that something's on the other side of that wall, if it keeps hopping out to launch an attack. And sure, the first few attacks will probably activate a sneak attack, due the targets inability to know the moment he's going to stick his head out and shoot. But, eventually, even the dumbest creatures will figure this out andfind a way not to get hit by the same character doing the same thing. Whether by protecting himself with an object of his own, or challenging him to a stale mate.

It really is up to the DM, and what he or she would think is an appropriate way to handle this situation. Maybe adding a higher DC check for the rogue to beat. You could also give the target a bonus to his passive perception, or have him roll for perception as an action, and if he spots the rogue, no more hiding in that same spot.

I think using the books for flat rules is against the spirit of D&D. It's not a console game with bug exploits. It's suppose to feel real, and fluid. If A happens before B, then C occurs. But what about D, E, F, etc. there are so many variables to consider.

Or, let the rogue roll his sneak attack damage, and cut it down to whatever you feel is necessary. For all he knows, he is hidden. But, maybe the creature knows exactly where he is. You can take away the rogues advantage due to him repeating the same thing over and over again.

I don't think the purpose here should be to punish the PC, but rather encourage him not to play the button mashing, tap X, X, X, X until he falls down dead, routine.

[Arkhios]

I don't think the purpose here should be to punish the PC, but rather encourage him not to play the button mashing, tap X, X, X, X until he falls down dead, routine.

Agreed. This thread makes me think that many people are reading too much into the rules that it becomes an impediment to the continuity of the game. This issue almost resembles the notorious question "how does grapple work". It's almost like when someone says "I want to hide", there's a chorus of protests and the game literally stops for hours of debate can you or can you not.

I propose, that instead of thinking too much about it, think to yourself if it would be fun, or cool, or even cinematic to let it happen, and if the answer is yes, let it, and move on. It's a game we're playing, and as long as it's fun - for everyone participating - let's continue. The moment when someone starts to whine about the minutiae of realism versus the RAW, the fun quickly degenerates to boredom and suddenly no one wants to play anymore; in the worst case scenario, with the one who was arguing against the matter at hand.

[Coffee_Dragon]

In this case, what is, in terms of game mechanics, doing very little but watch for (the rogue) reappearance? It can be:

I ready an attack against the rogue in the moment he exposes himself (allows you to attack the rogue, no disadvantage for you, he keeps the advantage);

I take the dodge action (cancels the Rogue's advantage).

Can you imagine something else, other than attempt to destroy his cover/camouflage?

The way I see it, in many cases you wouldn't have to do anything that amounts to taking an action, just rely on battlefield awareness that the game grants universally. My baseline here is the fact that the game lacks facing, and assumes that all combatants are generally aware of the position and activity of all others. (A little embarrassingly I can't find a rules reference for this now, but I don't think I'd have internalized it if it weren't there at all.) This basic allowance errs on the side of generosity, ranging all the way to isolating the footsteps of a creature behind cover while you're working out trying not to get crushed by a giant demon roaring flames in your face. So by default, if something is visible to a creature, they will see it, with all the consequences of seeing it. The premise may be dubious regarded as a simulation but makes a lot of sense in the context of 5E's design goals.

Of course there will be exceptions based on fiat, "common sense", isolated applications of line of sight, cover or illumination, or interfacing with the somewhat nebulous stealth system. So there are absolutely ways to get advantage on sniping, but an answer must be proposed to the question of "in doing this, how am I not seen", by the player, the DM, or (potentially very commonly and abstractly for people of the "just let them do it" mindset) established precedent.

So at one extreme end we have a sniper firing from darkness behind an arrow slit at some guy who is just trying to sell carrots at market. It is trivial to rule that the archer doesn't give away their position until the attack has been made.

Around the other extreme end we have the crossbow halfling behind a solitary barrel with an orc watching it from 30 feet away. The halfling cannot attack without sticking out from behind the barrel. If the halfling sticks out from behind the barrel, the orc cannot fail to see it. If the halfling is seen when the attack is made, it isn't made with advantage. This also makes sense from a flavour perspective because the halfling's being "hidden" in a single obvious spot should really add nothing to its tactical capacity. The only thing the orc doesn't know is exactly when the attack will be made, and that wouldn't be different if the halfling were just sitting on the barrel (without advantage). Basically the orc can pretend the barrel is an enemy with the ability to grow an arm with a crossbow on one side, or maybe the other side or the top depending on the halfling's handedness. And that enemy would not be getting advantage, because it's clearly visible out in the room, attacking from a known direction.

As I understand it, those who are looking to Sage Advice for this want confirmation of an inferred rule along the lines of, "If you are hidden, you are not considered to give away your position until after an attack, even if you become seen or heard in the process of setting up or making that attack." I doubt anyone would be greatly upset if such a rule had been in the book all along, but I ultimately don't think it is, and I also don't think it is to be found in JC's tweets. As was said in the neighbouring invisible/hidden thread*, JC is good at what he actually does, which is to answer questions without accepting or injecting a whit of context. He's chosen a channel that is extremely poor for actual analysis and explanation, though. Of whatever substance our 30-page discussions may hold, little or nothing carries back or forth across the Twitter channel.


* Incidentally it is very interesting to lurk in that thread and selectively read various claims and explanations to illuminate or support various positions in this one, at least superficially. Actually starting to import other people's quotes from another thread would probably be bad form, though.

[bid]

Rogue stands behind corner - hides by spending an abstract action but actually doing nothing - pops out "just enough", fires with advantage at someone who knew they were there because they're not seen "clearly enough" and apparently that's not a DM call when it comes to pop-up rogues?

Wizard stands behind corner - does not hide - pops out "just enough" and fires no less unseen - but does not get advantage because they don't have psionic mind-clouding powers?
Because "successfully hiding" means you won't pop your pointy hat first. It's not about making people forget you, it's about returning discreetly.

Some people are under the delusion they would keep calmly looking around when being targeted by covering fire.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'd rule the rogue may or may not be hidden based on circumstance. A marksman in a tree 250+ft away may not even decloak from firing. A rogue with knives in your face is really obvious. Popping up from cover may depend on how far away the rogue is, how long he's used the position, and the position and activities of his allies.

[Jerrykhor]

GDI Jeremy Crawford! Are his answers always like that? He is not answering the question at all.

Here's my take: Even though the game loosely define 'Hidden' to be 'unseen and unheard', I think another factor is equally important: not letting others know your position. If I saw you go behind a piece of furniture, even if you have 100% cover, I can't see you, but I know you are there. Popping in and out and shooting ranged attacks like a whack-a-mole is just taking cover, so you can't have advantage on attack because you are not an unseen attacker, but you have bonus to AC.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Because "successfully hiding" means you won't pop your pointy hat first. It's not about making people forget you, it's about returning discreetly.

The flavour justification of framing going behind cover and hiding as an integrated event was addressed earlier. A general rule needs to apply to more than rogues using bonus actions, and it's unclear why discreetness matters in cases where your position is effectively fixed.


Some people are under the delusion they would keep calmly looking around when being targeted by covering fire.

I assume battlefield conditions are meant to already be reflected in the rules. And non-unseen snipers don't get advantage just for targeting someone who is clearly distressed or distracted, so I think it can safely be said that in a situation where the target is known to know and only have to care about the fixed location of the shooter, battlefield chaos doesn't apply as a flavour justification.

[Orion3T]

Forgive me if I missed this, but doesn't Mike Mearls clear this one up here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/

OK, he makes it clear that's what he would likely rule, but at the very least it seems to have his approval as a general rule.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Mearls's tweets are pretty much "here's how I would play it on a whim", with scant ramifications for RAI, let alone RAW.

[mcsillas]

I prefer to have the rogue hide in heavily or lightly obscured areas (assuming they have the skulker feat) in order to gain advantage when attacking. I often set the scene so that the rogue has obscured places to hide, rather than leaving the only place to hide being from behind cover. Once the rogue attacks from an obscured area, he reveals his location but that doesn't necessarily mean he can be seen. I allow the rogue to be seen once the enemy beats his stealth roll, causing the rogue to remain unseen without having to move and hide repeatedly.

[LordFluffy]

I agree Rogues should be able to Hide frequently in combat. But I find it silly if they go behind the same wall, use the Hide action, then attack with advantage for being unseen 10 times in a combat. Someone will catch on eventually. Or, they can't hide when there is no cover. It's a push and pull, the DM must adjudicate sensibly while the players must Hide in sensible hiding spots.
Early on in this debate, there was a tweet that (provided that your enemies didn't just move and gain line of sight), eventually the bad guys would get advantage to their perception checks and the rogue would get disadvantage to his stealth check. Given the level of detail that 5e works with, I thought this was a reasonable solution

[Vogonjeltz]

GDI Jeremy Crawford! Are his answers always like that? He is not answering the question at all.

Here's my take: Even though the game loosely define 'Hidden' to be 'unseen and unheard', I think another factor is equally important: not letting others know your position. If I saw you go behind a piece of furniture, even if you have 100% cover, I can't see you, but I know you are there. Popping in and out and shooting ranged attacks like a whack-a-mole is just taking cover, so you can't have advantage on attack because you are not an unseen attacker, but you have bonus to AC.

Most of the time his answers are like that, yes.

Think of it this way. We're playing laser tag. I've stepped behind a chair and ducked down such that you can no longer see or hear me.

Which side of the chair am I going to pop out from the shoot you in the next 6 seconds? Which way do you dodge? If you pick the wrong way, you just leave yourself a more easily hit target to my shot. Answer: You don't know, which is exactly why I'd have an easier time hitting you (advantage on my attack roll).

On the inverse, if I just step behind the chair without hiding (i.e. ducking down below the height of it) and don't obscure the sound of my movements, I'll telegraph to you when and where I'm going to pop out for my shot, letting you react normally. i.e. without advantage.

One way of looking at advantage on an attack roll is when circumstances make it more difficult to defend against an attack.

It's the same reason that two characters with normal vision in darkness fight each other normally. They are both blinded (incapable of seeing their opponent) but and as a result neither can attack, nor defend, normally. The two things (attacking badly, being unable to stop an attack accurately) cancel out to be basically the same as if they could attack and defend normally. (Although, if one character normally had advantage, like a Barbarain raging, they're hindered "more" by the darkness, so that's something).

Actually that's one of the huge bonuses of Feral Senses, being able to fight in Darkness, Blinded, or against a Hidden Foe with no disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Which side of the chair am I going to pop out from the shoot you in the next 6 seconds? Which way do you dodge? If you pick the wrong way, you just leave yourself a more easily hit target to my shot. Answer: You don't know, which is exactly why I'd have an easier time hitting you (advantage on my attack roll).So what you're saying is a character can hide a hand crossbow behind his back, with both arms behind him too, and whip it out with an unknown ahead of time arm to shoot the enemy, and get advantage?

Because that's the exact same situation.

edit:

Yes it is. When attacking from hiding you don't reveal your position until after the attack roll is made.Citation please.

[Vogonjeltz]

So what you're saying is a character can hide a hand crossbow behind his back, with both arms behind him too, and whip it out with an unknown ahead of time arm to shoot the enemy, and get advantage?

Because that's the exact same situation.

No and that's obviously not the same at all.

[Tanarii]

No and that's obviously not the same at all.
It is, in fact, identical.

Alternately, instead of hiding behind a barrel in the middle of a room (edit: that the enemy knows you are behind) and shooting from a random side, you can give the barrel arms that it hides behind it's back, and pulls out to shoot from a random side.

It's identical, and it shows why your 'can't tell where it's coming from' argument doesn't hold any water.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Which side of the chair am I going to pop out from the shoot you in the next 6 seconds? Which way do you dodge? If you pick the wrong way, you just leave yourself a more easily hit target to my shot. Answer: You don't know, which is exactly why I'd have an easier time hitting you (advantage on my attack roll).

I'm standing right out in the open and I'm going to shoot you in the next 6 seconds. Which way do you dodge? Answer: You don't know, and the rules don't grant advantage for this.

[Zalabim]

It is, in fact, identical.

Alternately, instead of hiding behind a barrel in the middle of a room (edit: that the enemy knows you are behind) and shooting from a random side, you can give the barrel arms that it hides behind it's back, and pulls out to shoot from a random side.

It's identical, and it shows why your 'can't tell where it's coming from' argument doesn't hold any water.

While I do get your point in general, this example really doesn't work because of what it means to attack with a hand crossbow. Just like attacking with a bow, loading the ammunition and pulling back the string is part of the attack. So no, it isn't the same. The difference is that you can clearly see this one aiming and ready to fire. The other one you only might see at the moment they fire (it depends on stealth vs passive perception).

[Tanarii]

So no, it isn't the same. The difference is that you can clearly see this one aiming and ready to fire. .
Unless the target is hiding in darkness or invisible, in both cases you can see them when they aim and fair fire. So yes, it is the same.

And you can certainly load the crossbow, hide it behind you back, then pull it out on a random side to aim and attack.

The 'barrel with arms' perfectly illustrates the ridiculousness of the 'don't see where the attack is coming from' defense of pop-up hiding.

Edit: as does Coffee_Dragon's much simpler point ... there's no significant difference, on an simulation level, of a guy just standing in the open, in regards to 'knowing which way to dodge'.

[bid]

And you can certainly load the crossbow, hide it behind you back, then pull it out on a random side to aim and attack.
A person with hands behind his back "is the same" as a wall... with hands behind its back. I disagree.

[Tanarii]

A person with hands behind his back "is the same" as a wall... with hands behind its back. I disagree.
Less squishy, certainly. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

It is, in fact, identical.

Alternately, instead of hiding behind a barrel in the middle of a room (edit: that the enemy knows you are behind) and shooting from a random side, you can give the barrel arms that it hides behind it's back, and pulls out to shoot from a random side.

It's identical, and it shows why your 'can't tell where it's coming from' argument doesn't hold any water.

It's not identical.

In my example the victim has lost track of the attacker.

In your example the attacker is in plain view, their presence telegraphs the attack. The victim can see the motion coming and avoid it. Pretty obviously not the same.


I'm standing right out in the open and I'm going to shoot you in the next 6 seconds. Which way do you dodge? Answer: You don't know, and the rules don't grant advantage for this.

You're visible, the weapon is visible (and obviously on one side of your body). The rules don't give you advantage because I can see your motion as you attempt to draw and line up your shot, I can foil that attempt by moving to mess up your aim.


Unless the target is hiding in darkness or invisible, in both cases you can see them when they aim and fair fire. So yes, it is the same.

And you can certainly load the crossbow, hide it behind you back, then pull it out on a random side to aim and attack.

The 'barrel with arms' perfectly illustrates the ridiculousness of the 'don't see where the attack is coming from' defense of pop-up hiding.

Edit: as does Coffee_Dragon's much simpler point ... there's no significant difference, on an simulation level, of a guy just standing in the open, in regards to 'knowing which way to dodge'.

The hands behind the back person telegraphs motion in their shoulders. It's the same reason you focus on the direct center of a person's torso to see which hand they plan to attack with for blocking. If I don't see that initial motion, I have less of a chance of defending against a thrown punch, for example.

Someone who pops out of hiding minimizes the time in which a defender can react, that's why they get advantage. A known enemy who is visible has lost the element of surprise.

[Tanarii]

There is no significant difference in telegraphing or watching carefully between a guy who pulls out a crossbow behind his back, aims, and shoots vs someone crouching behind the only barrel in sight Sticking his head and crossbow up, aims, and shooting. You're really reaching for any justification you can find if you're trying to claim they are different.

[Malifice]

Unless the target is hiding in darkness or invisible, in both cases you can see them when they aim and fair fire. So yes, it is the same.

Dude, the hiding rules are clear. The question is not whether they can see you, the question is whether they can see you clearly enough. You don't have to be 100% not seen. You can be hiding behind a tree peeking out and watching what people are doing. You could be hiding around the corner doing the same.

If you attack while you are peeking around from your hiding spot, the specific rule is you do not reveal your position until after you resolve the attack. A character with the Skulker feat could fire a shot from around the corner, miss, and then duck back and remain hidden.

[LordVonDerp]

There is no significant difference in telegraphing or watching carefully between a guy who pulls out a crossbow behind his back, aims, and shoots vs someone crouching behind the only barrel in sight Sticking his head and crossbow up, aims, and shooting.

Well you're obviously not an experienced fighter. In the first case you can see the target's footwork, eyes, and arm movements well before he actually attacks, but in the second you can't see any of that until afterwards.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Well you're obviously not an experienced fighter. In the first case you can see the target's footwork, eyes, and arm movements well before he actually attacks, but in the second you can't see any of that until afterwards.

Why don't I see any of that if I'm looking right at it?

[LordVonDerp]

Why don't I see any of that if I'm looking right at it?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, if you can see the target, then you can see them telegraphing their attack.
Unless you're asking why you can't see a target telegraph their attacks if you can't even see them.

[Tanarii]

Dude, the hiding rules are clear.that's a debatable statement. :smallyuk:

But to be clear, I'm definitely NOT talking about "the hiding rules", ie either RAW or (now that it's been clarified) RAI. I'm talking about the ridiculous simulation-like justifications some people are willing to make to back up why they think the rules should work the way they work. So I'm countering those and pointing out where they are logically flawed. I can and do accept it's a game, and the rules are there to make playing the game relatively easy and simple and close enough to simulation. Especially when it comes to an actual game session. I assume others do the same to one degree or another.

also, I absolutely make those same kind of silly simulation justifications, both for and against RAW / RAI, when it comes to other topics. In fact I'm doing exactly that in a thread about how Fog Cloud works. I try to check myself once in a while and keep in mind that's what they are though. :smallbiggrin:

[Snails]

It also does little to explain why it's hidden-ness and not any unseen-ness that enables pop-up sniping, which is something it has in common with a lot of these flavour justifications. "It's just so chaotic and you can't keep track of everyone and you can't look everywhere" - all that could be said to apply to non-hidden, even non-unseen skirmishers under equally chaotic conditions. Do those take pains to fire only at people who are specifically getting ready to dodge them?

I think it is worth mentioning that D&D made a design decision forever ago that the default for getting ganged up on is a simple linearly additive process. In other words, one orc attacking one PC or two orcs attacking one PC or four orcs attacking one PC do not automatically gain any tactical bonus for a plus to hit (above and beyond the inevitable strategic advantage that larger numbers more often get lucky and take an enemy out of the fight). "Realistically" speaking, it would take heroic martial skill to not get instantly overwhelmed by numbers, which is why one man standing against great numbers even for a few minutes is the stuff of legends. (Various versions of D&D threw a tiny bone, in terms of shieldless AC or Flanking, but it added up to amazingly little for something that could easily be huge.)

This is something that Gary decided to ignore. Or, perhaps, he realized by fudging this issue, the stuff of legends became unrealistically easy to accomplish, which made the game more fun. Or, perhaps, it was just a happy side effect of building an RPG on the chassis of the miniatures mass combat war game that he had on hand.

It was a very practical decision that greatly simplifies the mechanics. However, once we are used to this frame of mind, it does feel weird to suddenly appeal to the "oh, but you are distracted" kind of argument. The entire system is built around the idea that such little concerns are steamrolled flat in the mechanics.

That is not to say that it is unreasonable for Hide to introduce such mechanics. I am just saying that people are not crazy to feel there is something "off" about adding such in, because it seems like a Special Pleading style rationalization, given what all the other rules say.

[Snails]

IMO, I accept the Stealth skill gives some sniping ability. However, if it is obvious the rogue is hiding behind that exact barrel again, that is a good reason to give Advantage for the Perception check (or Disadvantage the Stealth check). It is just a game, and the rogue is expected to often benefit from these tactics.

That said, there is something weird about the nebulousness of the reasoning. Is Advantage because of something special the rogue is doing or something particular the target is not doing? That feels like an argument where the goal posts are going to move, the moment a situation pins it down.

Also, if we call this just a game, I am not happy that this Stealth skill framework tends to make sniping supreme for rogues. Is there no room for melee rogues who are not lightfoot halflings??

[Crusher]

Ok, this is kinda long, but in DMing that situation, I'd try to rule via common sense. The NPCs aren't inanimate automatons, they're people (well, monsters, probably) with combat experience, and I'd handle the situation with that in mind.

So, if the rogue is hidden when the fight starts, their first shot will have advantage barring something weird. I think everyone's fine with this.

The rogue then tries to Hide on their bonus action, and on the first shot I would certainly still let them roll. To me, that attempt to hide is partly the rogue's attempt to hide after shooting and partly how sneaky the rogue was when the shot was taken.

If the rogue has a good hiding spot, they aren't going to leap out into plain sight and shoot, and then try to sneak back behind their barrel or whatever. They're going to stay as hidden as possible while leaning just enough around the corner to get sight of their target, shoot and then lean back to their hiding spot.

So, to me, that bonus action Hide attempt is going to be as much about how sneaky the rogue was while shooting as it was about the subsequent hiding effort.

The next step is deciding how difficult it will be to Hide. Mostly, we're talking opposed Stealth vs Perception rolls, so "difficulty" would be in the sense of Advantage/Disadvantage rather than DC-level. And that would depend heavily on what's going on in the room.

If the contents of the room are a half-dozen orc warriors, all of whom are engaged in melee with the rest of the party, the rogue won't face a very difficult roll to remain hidden. Fighting hand-to-hand against someone trying to kill you is pretty distracting. If the rogue rolls well on Hides and the orcs roll poorly on perception (and I'd probably only let the orc being shot at even roll, or possibly one more right next to the target), and the fight isn't very long, I'd be comfortable saying the orcs never even realized the rogue was there.

Now, lets say the orcs also happen to have a couple of their own archers who have taken cover behind some overturned tables and are doing the same hide and shoot back. If the rogue is shooting into the melee, I'd let the target as well as the archers roll to spot the rogue. And the archers would have an easier time of it because they don't have a paladin in their face.

If the rogue rolls well and the orcs roll poorly, I'd rule that the orc archers were maybe still drunk from the night before, or had gotten their blood-lust up were tunnel-visioning the melee sufficiently to completely miss the rogue (allowing another advantaged snipe for the rogue next round).

If the roll is successful but CLOSE, then I'd rule the archers (or possibly the target) realize there's a sniper out there. Not necessarily WHERE the sniper is, but that there's one out there and a vague warning is yelled out. The rogue can have another snipe with advantage, but the archers are now watching and will have a much easier time spotting the rogue on the probable follow-up Hide attempt (advantage to the orc archers on the next contested roll and I might let a melee orc or two roll as well).

If the archers roll really well, then they spot the rogue, yell out a warning to the melee, and the rogue can take cover but won't be hidden.

Where it gets more interesting is the next round *after* the rogue has been spotted directly (or perhaps vaguely identified). Lets say the fight doesn't change much and no melee orcs are able to run over to the rogue for whatever reason, and the rogue wants to hide again.

My ruling would depend to a large degree on environmental factors. If the rogue is crouched behind a single barrel in an open room, and nothing especially interesting happened in the fight, then I wouldn't even let the rogue roll. The orcs aren't complete idiots. They *SAW* the rogue behind the barrel and there's nowhere else to go. The rogue can have cover, but not be hidden. One of the orc archers will probably prepare an action to take a shot at the rogue if they try to pop out and shoot.

However, if something really distracting happened, then I'd let the rogue try. If the melee orcs are dead and the archers are now in melee, they're pretty distracted. If the party wizard just cast something big, flashy and dangerous like a fireball, that might be distracting, or if the Big Bad just made a dramatic entrance. In those cases, I'd let the rogue at least attempt to Hide with success meaning the rogue hid well AND the orcs were *really* distracted by whatever just happened.

Also, it would depend on the cover. A single barrel is out, but if there's a 20' long waist-high pile of rubble, then sure. The orcs know the rogue is behind the rubble... somewhere. The orcs *kinda* know where the rogue is, so that if an orc warrior breaks free from the melee they might run over and check it out. But if the orcs can't manage to do that, the rogue's position is uncertain enough that I'd let them attempt to Hide again. If successful, I would allow advantage on the next snipe, but its not like the orcs have magically forgotten the rogue exists and they'd make a serious attempt to get a warrior over to the rubble to flush the rogue out.

Finally, it would also depend on time and the targets' INT. The rogue could probably do the "shoot and hide" trick all day against zombies. Against orcs, I'd probably start giving the targets and archers advantage to spot the rogue after ~3 rounds. They're not smart, but they're got some combat experience and will eventually notice the arrows flying around and start wondering where they're coming from. Finally, something really smart will probably pick up on the trick quite quickly.

[Tanarii]

However, if it is obvious the rogue is hiding behind that exact barrel again, that is a good reason to give Advantage for the Perception check (or Disadvantage the Hide check).Or disadvantage to the stealth check. Given that handing out advantage and disadvantage is supposed to be within the DM's purview, that's probably the best way to handle the situation mechanically. If the DM thinks the situation warrants it of course.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'm not sure what you're asking here, if you can see the target, then you can see them telegraphing their attack.
Unless you're asking why you can't see a target telegraph their attacks if you can't even see them.

The arguments tend to drift a bit in the thread, but the main disputed case is when you would logically be seen as you step out/stand up/etc. in order to fire. If the target is ruled to be unseen, for whichever reason, then of course the printed rule kicks in and gives advantage. What we were talking about just now was what the critical difference is between someone in the open aiming, drawing and firing on the one hand and someone stepping out of cover (and/or hiding) and then doing all those things on the other, in both cases against a target which is presumed to be ready for this to happen and there logically only being one spot (direction) for the attacker to fire from.


Is there no room for melee rogues who are not lightfoot halflings??

It's harder to build flavour justifications around ogres with ballistas. :)

[Vogonjeltz]

But to be clear, I'm definitely NOT talking about "the hiding rules", ie either RAW or (now that it's been clarified) RAI. I'm talking about the ridiculous simulation-like justifications some people are willing to make to back up why they think the rules should work the way they work. So I'm countering those and pointing out where they are logically flawed. I can and do accept it's a game, and the rules are there to make playing the game relatively easy and simple and close enough to simulation. Especially when it comes to an actual game session. I assume others do the same to one degree or another.

We'll just have to disagree on that then.

Suffice to say, I think there's a clear advantage to being able to see an attacker before an attack vs not seeing them until the attack is executed. If you don't, that's ok, it's fine and all, you're wrong, but that's fine.

[Tanarii]

If you don't, that's ok, it's fine and all, you're wrong, but that's fine.Touché and well played, sir. :smallbiggrin:

[2D8HP]

If you don't, that's ok, it's fine and all, you're wrong, but that's fine.



Touché and well played, sir. :smallbiggrin:


I'd sig that.

[Malifice]

Confirmed at the 38:00 minute mark.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

Its like Ive been saying all along.

[Matticusrex]

To the people fighting this. Why are you so against admitting that you homebrew it? There is nothing wrong with homebrewing existing rules, just dont pretend your homebrew is RAW or RAI.

[mephnick]

To the people fighting this. Why are you so against admitting that you homebrew it? There is nothing wrong with homebrewing existing rules, just dont pretend your homebrew is RAW or RAI.

Because some people don't like to be reminded that D&D is most importantly a game and they can't wrap their heads around the fact that it might have rules that go against realism for sake of balance and fun.

[Malifice]

To the people fighting this. Why are you so against admitting that you homebrew it? There is nothing wrong with homebrewing existing rules, just dont pretend your homebrew is RAW or RAI.

I dont even (and have never) understood the need.

Im hidden, and observing you by peeking around the pillar/ corner/ tree/ log/ roof whatver and I shoot you (and gain advantage because you don't know Im there till the arrow is sticking out of your chest).

You dont have to be totally 100 percent obscured or behind cover to hide. You can be peeking around with a crossbow pointed at someone as they walk past (or quickly lean out and snap off a shot an an unaware target) and retain the element of surprise from your attack from hiding for a brief second (the time from pop up to the attack reaching your target):

".. the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly"

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf
(https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata-V1.pdf)

Like I've been saying all along, the specific rule 'You dont reveal yourself until after the attack has been resolved' is clear what happens when I shoot someone from around the log or tree or pillar that I am hiding behind.

Attack roll (at advantage for hiding) then the creature notices me (hit or miss), unless I have the Skulker feat and miss (in which case I remain hidden).

[Coffee_Dragon]

Attack roll (at advantage for hiding)

For context, the printed rule is that you get advantage for being unseen.

He does say some stuff. He spends a long intro and the outro explaining that the stealth rules are largely intentionally left to DM adjudication. He stresses that environmental circumstances are key to such adjudication. He points out people are always assumed to look in the right direction to notice an invisible character disturbing a blade of grass. He notes hiding can be maintained if you're not seen clearly enough, from which it trivially follows that hiding cannot be maintained if you are. He restates the rules on giving away your position, which are entirely undisputed to my recollection, and gives only examples that are not in contention. When they get to talking about barrels, the interviewer asks about a melee attack against someone presumed to turn their back, and Crawford immediately says that's DM adjudication. (There's also a lot of stuff he doesn't say that would be tangentially useful to the discussion, for instance whether a Hide action has to involve actually doing something that could logically obscure your position or if you can just sort of sit in place and switch a virtual toggle.) All in all, I'd say this scuttles blanket entitlement to pop-up sniping.

The real bomb here, of course, is passive Perception as floor. I can't wait for people to put on a straight face and explain how that always made sense with the printed rules.

[Malifice]

He spends a long intro and the outro explaining that the stealth rules are largely intentionally left to DM adjudication.

Which is something I have said all along. In fact I was making the point that the Stealth rules in particular were made intentionally open so DMs had even more wriggle room. The RAW is even expressly 'Your DM sets when you can hide'.

That said, he also clearly stated that the *general rule* is that creatures are assumed to be aware of all nearby creatures, and you are not hidden unless you first become mostly unseen (via invisibility, total cover, heavy obscurement or whatever), and then take the Hide action to also become unheard (and cover other signs of your passage and presence such as branches moving back as you move, grass bending over, jangling of armor, footprints in the mud and dirt etc).

The express RAW (from the first errata) is also that you dont have to be totally unseen to be hidden. You can peek around, over or out of your hiding spot.

When it comes to attacking from hiding, JC was clear that the wording of 'you reveal your position after making your attack, regardless of if you hit or miss' was intentional. The express RAW and RAI is that you have just enough time to snap off a shot from your hiding spot, and retain the advantage of being unseen until after the attack roll is resolved - i.e: your attack roll is made with advantage (unless your target has the Alert feat).

It cant get much clearer than that.


The real bomb here, of course, is passive Perception as floor. I can't wait for people to put on a straight face and explain how that always made sense with the printed rules.

Agreed . Its insane. Observant feat grants +5 to passive perception, and thus also increases your minimum perception check result to 15 + (Wisdom + Perception proficiency). In effect it reduces every perception check to 'take 15'.

Not in my games. Ive already houseruled the Observant feat to remove the +5, and instead grant the user of the feat the ability to choose to apply his passive perception, insight or investigation scores instead of rolling the die.

Effectively it let you 'take 10' on those three skills.

[mephnick]

Yeah using passive perception as a floor really messes with the system for me. If that was the case base PP needed to be different from the start.

[Jacquerel]

Yeah using passive perception as a floor really messes with the system for me. If that was the case base PP needed to be different from the start.

I don't understand how passive perception can be anything but a floor, if you're using it at all.
If something requires less perception to spot than your passive perception then you have spotted it even before you made the roll.
You would then also spot it after the roll, regardless of what you rolled.
Taking a perception check doesn't "turn off" your passive perception.

Either you treat it as "a floor", or you simply look at the roll and then an instant later (or more likely, an instant before) also have to check passive perception anyway.

Once passive perception enters into the equation even slightly it is already a floor to your perception just by virtue of existing, because the DC for active and passive perception is not different.

[Vogonjeltz]

The real bomb here, of course, is passive Perception as floor. I can't wait for people to put on a straight face and explain how that always made sense with the printed rules.

Er...what do you mean exactly?

The rules for hiding say to compare the passive.
Search lets a character make a check.

Both things are indicated on page 177 in the text box.

"When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with the creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score."
"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."

Or did he say something completely different? Because the way you phrased that, it makes it sound like he just reiterated the printed rules for the benefit of the illiterate or those who learn better by hearing than by reading.


Agreed . Its insane. Observant feat grants +5 to passive perception, and thus also increases your minimum perception check result to 15 + (Wisdom + Perception proficiency). In effect it reduces every perception check to 'take 15'.

Not in my games. Ive already houseruled the Observant feat to remove the +5, and instead grant the user of the feat the ability to choose to apply his passive perception, insight or investigation scores instead of rolling the die.

Effectively it let you 'take 10' on those three skills.

When did you think Passive perception applied if not always?

Also, general question for those in disbelief: Before you knew this would you have rated Observant as a feat as well as say....Great Weapon Master? How about now? What about compared to other feats?

[mephnick]

When did you think Passive perception applied if not always?


Well the only time I use "active" perception is in combat. I didn't think PP worked as some insane Reliable Talent for all characters. It will be impossible for a rogue to stealth against perceptive monsters and monsters against perceptive characters. Almost removes the whole point of stealth in combat. This also means all skills used passively should have ability floors.

[Tanarii]

This also means all skills used passively should have ability floors.
All skills can be used as a Passive Score. All that's required is the DM determine the check to be a secret check, or for it to be used repeatedly over time without a die roll for each increment of time, with a determination of resolution made at some unspecified point during that time.

For example, walking across a slippery surface might be a Passive Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Running or swimming for an extended time might be a Passive Constitution (Athletics) check. The DM determining if you recall the lore about something when you see it might be a Passive Intelligence (appropriate Lore skill) check. Sussing some secrets at a party might be Passive Wisdom (Intuition) or Passive Charisma (no skill) depending on how you approach it.

So calling them a 'floor' depends on if a Passive score is determined by the DM to apply. The special thing about Passive Perception is it is typically assumed to apply, unless the PC is specifically doing something that means they wouldn't see (or otherwise notice) something. That makes it more generically a 'floor'. The same could probably be assumed to apply to Intelligence (recall) checks and Wisdom (Intuition) checks a lot of the time. I know I use Passive scores for both of those a lot when running a game, typically because often they're 'secret' checks.

[Sabeta]

Likewise, I can't see how Passive Perception can't be anything but the floor. You are always looking around, smelling, hearing the world around you. The only time you're not, is when you're focused on something else. PHB seems to corroborate that given that tasks such as cartography disable your ability to Passively Perceive. Feats of strength, dexterity, or the ability to recall information or move audiences all require mechanical skill and effort. Perception on the other hand is literally how well do you see what's around you.

You can choose to use an average score for stealth checks, or roll in secret if you'd like, but it shouldn't be assumed that just because Perception is Passive everything is. There's a reason it gets its own space on the character sheet when nothing else does.

As to the main topic, I pretty much agree with everything Malifice says. Hiding means you're hidden, and you have advantage when you pop out. Seems pretty clear to me, always have and always will. The difference between a guy standing out in the open, a wizard walking around a corner, and a Rogue popping out, is that two of them made no effort to conceal their movements, while the Rogue did. If it's a situation where someone watched the Rogue move to a hiding place, the stealth check is probably made with disadvantage, or the perception check with advantage. If it's not the Rogue's turn, and the enemy saw him hide somewhere, then they can easily just walk towards the hiding spot to reveal the rogue. As Malifice said, you don't need full cover to hide. You just need enough; however I'd almost definitely give the rogue disadvantage if he's hidden somewhere where he could be easily spotted.

This is yet another argument, like the whole Perception vs Investigation thing that I see entirely too frequently. I've always had one stance on it, the Sage Advice just confirmed that stance, and yet people still want to pretend it's wrong somehow. At this point, I'm more interested in why people want to try so hard to prove the rules or the SA wrong than I am in the same tired arguments.

[Tanarii]

At this point, I'm more interested in why people want to try so hard to prove the rules or the SA wrong than I am in the same tired arguments.
Because arguing online is a good way to spend our time? It's often a fun way though. :smallbiggrin:

Plus it lets us think about how we actually want these things to work when we run a game.

[mephnick]

So calling them a 'floor' depends on if a Passive score is determined by the DM to apply.

He just said passive perception is always on. Therefore passive everything is always on. My barbarian now cannot roll lower than a 16 on Athletics checks because his floor kicks in if he rolls low. My Arcane Trickster now cannot roll lower than a 24 on any stealth check.

Why have ability checks at all if they designed it to be 90% solved by passives?

[Orion3T]

He just said passive perception is always on. Therefore passive everything is always on. My barbarian now cannot roll lower than a 16 on Athletics checks because his floor kicks in if he rolls low. My Arcane Trickster now cannot roll lower than a 24 on any stealth check.

Why have ability checks at all if they designed it to be 90% solved by passives?

Actually he didn't - it's not 'on' when unconscious.

The reason Perception is 'always on' is because percieving stuff is something most creatures do all the time no matter what else they are doing, unless they are unconscious. And even then there's some argument about bein asleep (which is technically no different in 5e so this would be up to the DM).

I'm not sure how the same argument would apply to athletics. It could be applied to stealth if your Trickster specifies they are going to be sealthy all the time, but I'd expect there to be a price for that in the form of slower movement and so on.

[Knaight]

He just said passive perception is always on. Therefore passive everything is always on. My barbarian now cannot roll lower than a 16 on Athletics checks because his floor kicks in if he rolls low. My Arcane Trickster now cannot roll lower than a 24 on any stealth check.

Why have ability checks at all if they designed it to be 90% solved by passives?

I don't buy the idea that 5e was actually designed to have a passive floor that you have a 50% chance of rolling above (particularly given that it doesn't make a lot of sense as a class feature if it's a standard ability). With that said, the idea of ability checks being built around a baseline of stuff you can just do by getting the skill and stretching upwards isn't a bad one - I've actually been playing around with a reverse dicepool mechanic to get exactly that behavior, along with being able to fall off the top of the scale for a check while not able to fall off the bottom (although there's a point where that doesn't really matter because the fact that your chance isn't literally 0 on account of that being an asymptote is small comfort for your .001% success rate).

[Tanarii]

He just said passive perception is always on.JC was wrong. Besides unconsciousness, the PHB explicitly calls out at least four specific cases where it is not 'on':
Navigating
Drawing a Map
Tracking
Foraging

It also is explicitly not on for:
Not in a marching order rank where they can notice the threat (DM determination)
Characters that turn their attention to other tasks as they travel.

(Note that traveling includes moving around in a dungeon / adventure site.)


Therefore passive everything is always on.This does not follow. Passive Perception has specific clauses for when a character should use it, and when they don't. Other passive checks are determined by the DM.

[Sabeta]

Not in a marching order rank where they can notice the threat (DM determination)

It's still on in this case, it's just a matter of being able to see things. Someone behind a crowd has a nearly impossible DC of trying to see a small object through them. The people up front have no problem though. I think it's also safe to say that PP is always on except where the book says it clearly isnt, and that it doesn't make JC any less right about it. Specific beats General.

I also disagree with the sleeping bit. Passive would be the ONLY way to perceive things while sleeping. Your passive perception would be at disadvantage sure, perhaps even an extreme form of disadvantage (like, -10), but I absolutely would not disable it. If there's a rules quote that disagrees with that though, I'd be interested, as otherwise there's no reasonable way to attack the players at night without automatically winning or giving the players an active roll. Which to me should be impossible while sleeping. (let me just look around for bad guys while I sleep. Thanks GM!)

[Tanarii]

I think it's also safe to say that PP is always on except where the book says it clearly isnt, and that it doesn't make JC any less right about it. Specific beats General.
The book says it's not 'on' whenever you turn your attention to other tasks than looking for threats.

It's an extrapolation, but to me this indicates that it's clearly not 'on' when you're doing something other than actively paying attention to your surroundings.

So no, saying its 'always on except when' isn't right. The general seems to be if you are paying attention for threats and can see / detect them, then it's 'on'. If you aren't, it's not.

However, IIRC from listening to it yesterday, at that point in the podcast JC was mostly talking about perception in combat. We need a transcript of exactly what he said so we can pick it apart properly. :smallwink:

[Sabeta]

I would say that still holds true what I just said. It's always on until it's not. If you aren't hefting boulders and balancing on tightropes you've got Passive off. The only thing needed for passive perception is for somebody to not be engaged in the current task. It also doesn't stop the potential of builds like Observent Druids who can see everything, and deliberately spends their time making sure that they see everything.

I think people's big problem with "always-on" PP comes from builds where PP is extremely powerful. The player need only do nothing and they'll be able to spot every trap or ambush waiting for them. This ends up forcing the DMs hand. Either the player is allowed to spot everything by passively observing his surroundings or you raise the DC and give all enemies +10 to stealth checks so that you can surprise your players still.

[Tanarii]

I would say that still holds true what I just said. It's always on until it's not.Okay. But in that case were just arguing semantics, because we agree. It's on if you're paying attention to your surroundings, it's off if you aren't. (And it's disadvantage if you're doing it half assed like traveling at speed, or DM's discretion.)



I think people's big problem with "always-on" PP comes from builds where PP is extremely powerful. The player need only do nothing and they'll be able to spot every trap or ambush waiting for them. This ends up forcing the DMs hand. Either the player is allowed to spot everything by passively observing his surroundings or you raise the DC and give all enemies +10 to stealth checks so that you can surprise your players still.
That's never been a problem for me. First off all because you still surprise the other non-super-PP PCs, since surprise is determined character by character. And second because I have no problem with a character who has invested in not being surprised, and doesn't do anything other than keep his eyes peeled for threats, actually detecting those threats. And It makes the game faster and smoother for me to run to use PP, so it's a win for me all around.

[Sabeta]

Okay. But in that case were just arguing semantics, because we agree. It's on if you're paying attention to your surroundings, it's off if you aren't. (And it's disadvantage if you're doing it half assed like traveling at speed, or DM's discretion.)

That's never been a problem for me. First off all because you still surprise the other non-super-PP PCs, since surprise is determined character by character. And second because I have no problem with a character who has invested in not being surprised, and doesn't do anything other than keep his eyes peeled for threats, actually detecting those threats. And It makes the game faster and smoother for me to run to use PP, so it's a win for me all around.

Then we're agreed all around. I too am fine with characters building for specific things. Playing an Observent Druid means they're not playing a GWM Fighter, and I'm 1,000% okay with that.

[Tanarii]

Then we're agreed all around. I too am fine with characters building for specific things. Playing an Observent Druid means they're not playing a GWM Fighter, and I'm 1,000% okay with that.
From that perspective and on the original topic, I really don't have a problem with a 'pop-up' Rogue. Except in some edge-cases unlikely to occur in an actual game, that stretch my personal suspension of disbelief. Like the single barrel/column in the middle of an empty plain white-room scenario.

[bid]

I don't buy the idea that 5e was actually designed to have a passive floor that you have a 50% chance of rolling above (particularly given that it doesn't make a lot of sense as a class feature if it's a standard ability).
OTOH, if half the party notice something there's no reason to roll for it. Sometimes the narrative question is "who will notice?" more than "will they notice?".

[Vogonjeltz]

He just said passive perception is always on. Therefore passive everything is always on. My barbarian now cannot roll lower than a 16 on Athletics checks because his floor kicks in if he rolls low. My Arcane Trickster now cannot roll lower than a 24 on any stealth check.

Why have ability checks at all if they designed it to be 90% solved by passives?

There's pretty much no such thing as a passive use of Athletics. So, no, the Barbarian is going to always have to roll.

[mephnick]

There's pretty much no such thing as a passive use of Athletics. So, no, the Barbarian is going to always have to roll.

Yes but if my passive score is 16 and if passives count as a floor to any active roll (like perception now) then any roll under 16 still counts as 16.

It just seems weird to use passive scores as a floor for some skills and not all. Like my perception, my athletic ability doesn't cease to exist most of the day. Why doesn't it count as a floor for active checks and passive perception does?

[Tanarii]

There's pretty much no such thing as a passive use of Athletics. So, no, the Barbarian is going to always have to roll.
Running, swimming or climbing While trying to maintain normal speed under adverse conditions. Passive Strength (Athletics) or Passive Constitution (Athletics).

Edit: I agree that some skills, like Athletics or Acrobatics, tend to be more inclined to 'do this thing one time right now'. As opposed to requiring a random checkpoint during an extended use of the skill that would normally require a roll regularly, with a random point of determination of success during the process.

But if you had to use Acrobatics to traverse an icy lake with several points where failure meant making no progress, Passive (Acrobatics) would be appropriate. You're balancing the entire time, and you need a resolution for success at a point somewhere along the way. That's what passive checks are for. So you don't have to roll over and over again as you go.

(Kinda the wrong thread for this comment, but thre are multiple threads on the same thing right now.)

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes but if my passive score is 16 and if passives count as a floor to any active roll (like perception now) then any roll under 16 still counts as 16.

It just seems weird to use passive scores as a floor for some skills and not all. Like my perception, my athletic ability doesn't cease to exist most of the day. Why doesn't it count as a floor for active checks and passive perception does?

There isn't a passive use case for all checks, Athletics is a great case in point.

You aren't passively being Athletic, it's an affirmative act. The idea that all checks have a passive case has no basis, perception on the other hand is explicitly something that's always happening, it's called situational awareness.

The situations Tanarii listed are all explicit checks, not scores. It's the character making an active attempt.

[Tanarii]

You aren't passively being Athletic, it's an affirmative act. The idea that all checks have a passive case has no basis, perception on the other hand is explicitly something that's always happening, it's called situational awareness.Nothing about Passive checks (in general) requires the action be passively used by the character. The PHB RAW for Passive checks explicitly allows them for an action being taken repeatedly, which means it works for something the character is actively doing. This is something that you regularly try to ignore.

[Vogonjeltz]

Nothing about Passive checks (in general) requires the action be passively used by the character. The PHB RAW for Passive checks explicitly allows them for an action being taken repeatedly, which means it works for something the character is actively doing. This is something that you regularly try to ignore.

Yet neither of those examples given in the PHB is active, detecting hidden doors and noticing hidden foes are passive.

[Tanarii]

Yet neither of those examples given in the PHB is active, detecting hidden doors and noticing hidden foes are passive.
What's that got to do with the price of milk?

[SiCK_Boy]

Actually, both could (and should, in my opinion) be considered "active" on the part of the character. The player who stipulates his character will look for hidden doors all along a 500 feet long corridor is certainly trying to be active.

The character will not just patiently wait for the universe to flash a light over the secret door (assuming his passive score is high enough to find the door). The character will look closely at the walls, take a step back, adjust the lighting to eliminate shadows, etc. All kinds of things that make it a "skill" in the first place rather than just "instinct".

Same goes with perception to spot hidden enemies. Usually, we assume that, because the rules refer to "passive perception", all characters have this sort of inbedded enemy detector that just bleep an alarm in their head. Perception is a skill; as such, it means you can train in it, learn to focus on certain anomalies in the environment that are indicative of hidden foes for example, or just increase your peripheral vision (or get into the habit of regularly scanning all around you instead of just walking and looking at your feet). Again, this is all very "active" on the part of the character.

Anyway, it's still irrelevant whether the character is active or not. As Tanarii repeated in multiple threads, nothing in the rules states that a "passive check" means that a character is passive. It is an unfortunate choice of words on the part of the designer; maybe in D&D 6th edition, they'll replace it with something else.

[ProphetSword]

I explained in another thread, and will also explain here, that people are misunderstanding what "passive" means in D&D. A passive skill check simply means you don't roll, not that you are necessarily doing it automatically.

It is spelled out quite clearly in the PHB on page 175, under the heading "Passive Checks" in the very first sentence, which reads:

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls."

A Passive Perception check exists so that the DM can determine what characters might perceive without needing to roll or tipping players off by asking them to roll. It is also used for a repeated task, and is merely a tool to keep the game moving so that constant rolls aren't required. If someone is searching for secret doors every five feet in a dungeon, instead of having the player constantly roll and slow things down, the DM can opt to use a passive skill check.

There is an argument to be made that it's within the DM's right, if the character is distracted by something else (reading a book, flirting with a waitress, concentrating on a ritual, etc) that they don't even get a Perception check, passive or not.

You may be asking what all this has to do with the discussion...and that's that people seem to think passive means that something can be used without any interaction from the character. But, that's not always true. I don't have RAW to back me up, but I also can't produce any RAW that says opposite...so there you go.

[Vogonjeltz]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

Well, for one it means it's going to go up what with the harsh winter limiting the supply of good grazing land.

Also, contrary to what you wrote, it doesn't say an action taken again and again, but rather a task that is repeated.

My point was that the examples given are of something done passively in both cases which in turn suggests it isn't active at all, but rather...passive, just like it says on the tin.


You may be asking what all this has to do with the discussion...and that's that people seem to think passive means that something can be used without any interaction from the character. But, that's not always true. I don't have RAW to back me up, but I also can't produce any RAW that says opposite...so there you go.

Scores are not used by the character or player, they're used by the DM.

When the character actively chooses to do something they use the check, but before they do, the DM applies the score, which is exactly what occurs in the examples given.