Sneak Attack Pop up Gallery

[Jam_Slatewhich]

Hey guys, im having a bit of trouble with a rouge right now (well, he wouldn't describe it as trouble) as i find that he is able to deal with almost any situation by entering it hidden (which is fine), then using sneak attack (still fine), then just using the bonus action hide given by cunning action. The problem is that i don't know how i should rule it, whether the enemy knows his general location, so if he doesnt move he is auto-found, or whether an enemy needs to make a perception check, but because he specked stealth, is super difficult to do.

[Wizard_Lizard]

enemies can make perception checks?

[Wilko]

Using the Hide action does not make him invisible, it means that the hostile has lost sight of him and does not know exactly where he is to target him, and of course to do this he would need cover to break line of sight anyway, you can't just stand in the open and say "I hide so you can't see me"

in this case assuming that the rogue has ducked behind a pillar or something then he is "Hidden" for the purposes of getting a sneak attack next round because the opponent does not know exactly where he will pop out from, but they still know "he was there last" (Unless you homebrew a monster based on The Silence from Doctor Who...) and can use their movement to run around that pillar encounter the rogue and attack him. The perception check would only be needed if he has changed location and they still can't see him after moving...

Also regardless of if the hostile knows the exact location of the rogue he can make an attack at disadvantage because he knows the rogue is present as per the "Unseen Attackers and Targets" section of the PHB

[Wizard_Lizard]

umm. hide works by covering your own eyes right?
If I can't see you, you cam't see me rules.

[DeTess]

An easy way to get suggestions for counters is to use a rogue using the same tactics against the party in their next encounter. This has the upside that whatever suggestions the party comes up with should be fair game for your use, whereas enemies suddenly knowing to go and check behind the pillar/crate/bush the rogue is hiding behind might trigger an argument.

[Tanarii]

Couple of ways you can choose to rule this.

First is that pop-up hiding isn't possible. This pretty much screws Rogues.

Next is that pop-up hiding is always possible, provided conditions for hiding exist. This make Roues seem very powerful, but if you assume they're supposed to get Sneak attack every round, it really just means their bonus action is being consumed every round.

Lastly you can rule pop-up hiding isn't possible unless X. For example if you use a battle mat, you can rule 'unless you move at least one square away, remaining under cover, after hiding.' In TotM it might be 'unless it's much bigger than you are and you move a bit after hiding.' The prevents hiding & popping up from behind narrow columns or barrels or (for Halflings) behind people. But it allows it for ducking around corners, or hiding in fog clouds or darkness or foliage, or hiding behind a large wagon or under a very large table, then popping up next turn.

[Zetakya]

What sub-class are we dealing with here?

[Wildarm]

Hey guys, im having a bit of trouble with a rouge right now (well, he wouldn't describe it as trouble) as i find that he is able to deal with almost any situation by entering it hidden (which is fine), then using sneak attack (still fine), then just using the bonus action hide given by cunning action. The problem is that i don't know how i should rule it, whether the enemy knows his general location, so if he doesnt move he is auto-found, or whether an enemy needs to make a perception check, but because he specked stealth, is super difficult to do.

Provided he has a source of full cover he can do this without issues. Just have him roll a stealth check. If he beats the passive perception of the foe he attempts to shoot, it works just fine. If he tries the same trick again, especially from the same hiding spot give the foe advantage(+5) on their passive perception. Still a good chance the rogue can manage but now it's not a walk in the park for them. They will need to move around between sniping.

It's exactly how a rogue is meant to work(IMO). Think about gun fights, people are always jumping out from behind cover and attempting to pick off foes. It's the same thing for a rogue. They should be getting sneak attack damage most rounds of combat.

If you really want to combat this, you can have foes use an action to make a perception check to find the hiding rogue and warn others if they beat his hide check. Another option, if they have ranged attacks is to ready an action and turn the rogue into a pin cushion when he jumps out of his hiding spot.

[NRSASD]

If it becomes a problem, just have enemies ready actions to target him. Sure they'll get smacked a bit, but a hail of crossbow bolts or a fireball will rapidly encourage the rogue to be more strategic with his pop up tactics.

[Zuras]

As long as there are multiple distractions for the enemy, and the rogue has multiple potential points to attack from, I generally let pop up hiding work.

If the Rogue is the only PC in the area and there is only one spot to attack from, I let it work the first time but let them know they need to move around more for it to work again.

Tactically, the key for the DM is to close the distance to the rogue so not having Cunning Action for dashing or disengaging becomes a real price for using the tactic.

[Keravath]

Keep in mind that the rogue sneak attack is factored into the class balance. They only ever get one attack unless they multiclass and the only way for their damage to remain competitive with other classes is to actually land that sneak attack on most rounds.

If you are playing levels 1-4 then it seems a bit powerful since a rogue landing sneak attack will do 3d6+stat damage by level 3. However a PAM paladin would have 2 attacks for d10+stat each or a Xbow expert fighter will have two attacks for d6+stat on each but they will also have archery so they will hit more often.

Comparing averaged damage for these cases and a 16 attack stat:

rogue 3d6 + 3 = 13.5 average
paladin 2d10 + 6 = 17 average
fighter 2d6 + 6 = 13 average (but they hit 10% more often)

If you compare to a single attack build then the rogue is clearly a bit ahead at level 1-4.

At level 5, all the martial classes pick up extra attack but the rogue only gets an extra d6. This puts all the other martial classes either ahead of or about equal to a rogue. The classes or builds with 3 attacks are still significantly ahead of the rogue even if they can manage to land sneak EVERY turn.

However, if you find sneak attack disturbing, just wait for GWM barbarian builds, paladins landing critical smites and other sources of burst damage - these far exceed the damage done by a rogue.

----

Anyway, a rogue obtaining advantage by hiding, then popping out and shooting an arrow is absolutely normal and almost necessary to keep the rogue competitive in damage with the other classes as the levels progress. In fact, a rogue really needs as many ways to generate advantage as possible since there are a lot of circumstances where hiding is not possible.

Hiding requires something to break line of sight between the target and the rogue. As soon as the rogue is in line of sight they are no longer hidden. This means you can't hide when you can be seen and you can't do anything more than step out of cover to shoot when hidden or they will notice you.

Halflings are an interesting case since they can hide behind creatures one size larger than them. This still will not enable melee sneak attacks since they will be noticed when moving toward the target (DM call depending on circumstances) but they would be able to use a ranged sneak attack with advantage.

Finally, as mentioned, hidden has a particular meaning in 5e - it means that the opponent is no longer aware of your current actions. They may know roughly where you are but they don't know whether you are loading your crossbow, pulling out a sword, treating wounds, taking a potion or casting a spell. You could be doing anything. As a result, they lose the ability to quickly react to whatever action you do decide to take. You might be behind a tree but are you popping out high/low/left or right? Which target are you attacking? In any combat there is a lot going on and the target is not staring at the tree waiting for you to pop out and shoot (since then they would be paying no attention to the rest of their surroundings) ... so when you do, they can't react quickly which gives you advantage on the attack roll and also enables sneak attack.

Finally, unless the rogue has an opportunity to prepare for an encounter, and know that it is coming up, and they have some cover to hide behind. It is not a given that they would start the combat hidden. I have played a number of rogue characters and out of all the encounters there were probably only two where there was sufficient prep time that I could start hidden and those were usually associated with actual surprise rounds which are very uncommon.

[Keravath]

If it becomes a problem, just have enemies ready actions to target him. Sure they'll get smacked a bit, but a hail of crossbow bolts or a fireball will rapidly encourage the rogue to be more strategic with his pop up tactics.

Usually, the enemies have multi attack and are much more interested in dealing with the closer party members rather than sacrificing most of their attacks to irritate a rogue that is popping out from behind cover 40' away. I agree it could be a useful tactic in specific circumstances, but if the enemies have so little distraction that they can afford to ready a single attack to deal with a pesky rogue then the rogue is probably better off using dash and running far far away since the party would appear to have already lost.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd actually recommend finding another solution for stealth altogether. The existing stealth system isn't very fun, and it has a lot of broken parts about it. It's technically impossible to melee attack someone from Stealth, unless there's a reason that they couldn't detect you (like if they were blind or you were invisible).

You could use my version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578001-MOG-Mechanics-Stealth-(Less-spam-more-ninjas!)), which focuses around making Stealth better long term, but worse for spamming (that is, it's a lot better for infiltration, espionage and assassinations, but worse for players who just try to spam Hide for Advantage every turn). Most people say they liked how versatile but concise it was (there's no confusion as to how anything resolves, or whether or not you're hidden or not).

There are other solutions out there, too, if you did a search on the Homebrew section of the site (Search for the word Stealth in the title, filter by 5e threads).

[jas61292]

There are many ways to do stealth that are compatible with the rules. If pop up stealth is disruptive, then dont allow it. It's not going to break the game. In fact, it will probably balance it.

As people often mention, rogues are balanced around sneak attack. While this does not mean they should get it 100% of the time, it should probably be far closer to 100% than 50%. That being said, they are balanced around sneak attack most rounds, NOT around advantage most rounds. The games balance assumes that a rogue always has sneak attack because they have an ally in melee, not because they are pop up hiding and getting continuous advantage.

A strict reading of the rules might suggest pop up hiding simply can't happen, since you typically need a line of sight to attack (at least if you want advantage), and moving into line of sight ends being hidden. But the idea that you cannot attack from hidden with advantage does not sit right with me. The way it works in my games is that once an enemy sees you for the first time, simply having the hidden status is not enough to gain advantage. You must be hidden again and then next time you pop up it must be from a place the enemy would not reasonably expect. This allows the occasionally stealth strategy, but generally limits its effective by making it one and done, at least without wasting turns.

[Man_Over_Game]

You could offer less full cover. Make most cover only be 1/2 or 3/4, so that the Rogue regularly has to go Prone and stand up (-50% movement each turn) in order to pull off their Hidden status. If an enemy swoops around the corner to attack the Rogue in between snipes, the Rogue is Prone which grants the enemy Advantage, punishing him for his repeated and stale tactics.

[Dalebert]

What Ketavath said but shorter: a rogue has trouble helping up with the single target dmg of most melee even if they qualify for sneak every round. I wouldn't stress that. I even feel that frequent advantage is a balancing factor they deserve with their one attack that all their dmg rides on. However pop up hiding isn't always going to be possible. Some terrains should provide and some shouldn't. That's enough to balance IMHO.

[Yakmala]

Typically when I DM, I have the hide action result in diminishing returns.

1: Hiding before the fight begins: Good job. Maybe you even get a surprise round.

2: Trying to hide after the fight has broken out: Assuming there's terrain you can hide behind, it's your Stealth vs the enemy's Perception.

3: Trying to re-hide after you have already hidden: Enemy has advantage on their Perception check. Rogue has disadvantage on Stealth unless they are hiding in a completely different spot.

4: Trying to re-hide again, after already pulling this stunt twice: Sorry, no. Unless the enemy is a newborn that has not learned about object permanence, this isn't going to work.

[Dalebert]

4: Trying to re-hide again, after already pulling this stunt twice: Sorry, no. Unless the enemy is a newborn that has not learned about object permanence, this isn't going to work.

This seems like a straw man. It's not that they have no idea where you are. You're presumably somewhere behind that haystack. Point is they've lost track of you enough that you will pop out and shoot before they can be ready and you get advantage. They KNOW it's coming but they're so tensed up and you're just too quick for them!

A cunningless character, they can clearly see the edge of your head as you watch and wait for the right opening and they're ready for you. Or whatever. Point is, in the middle of combat it's purely an action cost + skill check to gain advantage that's a critical part of rogue class features. Don't over think it.

[Zetakya]

Remember that you don't need to be hidden (or have advantage by another means) to land a Sneak Attack; SA works on anybody who is within 5 feet of somebody hostile to them without Advantage.

You only really need Hidden to get a SA on the opening round or two of combat before your heavy melee types close. After that you can just shoot engaged targets in the back for Sneak Attack damage; the only thing you gain from hidden is Advantage on the attack roll, not the additional damage dice.

[AdAstra]

If you want to reduce the frequency of the rogues getting advantage, you could always say that if the rogue appears from the same spot, or close enough, as where they hid, people are gonna notice them before they get a shot off, so they don't get advantage. After all, if you see someone dive into the bush, you're probably not going to just ignore their existence, and if they have to leave cover to take a shot (if the rogue chooses dense foliage, they might be able to see through it while remaining unseen, however) you'd probably notice and act to defend yourself. Enemies may get disadvantage to hit, but the rogue will have to reposition while hidden to count as an unseen attacker IMO. That coupled with smart movement of enemies to try and flush them out of hiding should be sufficient to prevent constant advantage.
I would recommend not always going after the rogue, though, since it can easily lead to them feeling like you're unfairly targeting them. But if the party is far away and the rogue is close, it only makes sense for them to go after the dangerous and evasive, but relatively squishy target.

[greenstone]

They will need to move around between sniping.

For me, that is the important point.

If the rogue tries to hide behind a tree, she's not hidden. I know exactly where she is. She's over there, behind that tree. If she pops out to throw a dagger, I will not be surprised.

However, if she ducked behind a wall and sneakily moved along the wall and then behind a rock, I don't know where she is. I'm thinking she's over there, behind that wall, but she's not.

[Man_Over_Game]

One problem that needs to be addressed, before people make suggestions, is determining what each person defines "Hidden" as.

From my experience, I've seen 3 different definitions:


If you "hide", enemies do not know your location, period. AKA Video Game Stealth.
You must first "Hide" to make your actions unknown. If you move, your position will also be unknown. Attacking in the same spot over and over grants Advantage, if only because you're not telegraphing your shots.
You must first "Hide" to attempt to be Hidden, but you don't get the benefits of being Hidden until your location is unknown. Hiding in the same spot does nothing, as the enemy knows where the threat is.



And there's not a perfect answer. But it's important to call out which answer is yours, to see if it applies to the OP's scenario. For example, if he believes in #2 at his table, the solution from a #3 might not be applicable.

[Lunali]

For me, that is the important point.

If the rogue tries to hide behind a tree, she's not hidden. I know exactly where she is. She's over there, behind that tree. If she pops out to throw a dagger, I will not be surprised.

However, if she ducked behind a wall and sneakily moved along the wall and then behind a rock, I don't know where she is. I'm thinking she's over there, behind that wall, but she's not.

If you can't see the rogue, it doesn't matter that you know where they are, you don't know when the attack will be coming and can't read their movements to predict it. There is very little practical difference between an attack from someone that you can't see because they're behind a solid object and one from someone who is magically invisible whose location you know.

[Tanarii]

From my experience, I've seen 3 different definitions:

Also relevant is if the DM rules that you must be hidden as you make the attack, and what constitutes that.

I've if you lean around a corner or peek over a barrel to take a shot, do you break hiding and lose advantage before the attack? Seen it ruled that way, which made attacking out of darkness&hidden or being invisible&hidden about the only feasible option.

[Zetakya]

You. Do. Not. Need. To. Be. Hidden. To. Get. Sneak. Attack.

Please read my earlier response upthread.

[Tanarii]

You. Do. Not. Need. To. Be. Hidden. To. Get. Sneak. Attack.

Please read my earlier response upthread.
Having an ally within 5ft of your desired target isn't always feasible with every situation. Besides, this thread is specifically about pop-up hiding and sneak attack.

However, you're right you don't need to be hidden. You just need to be unseen to get advantage. Hiding is just way to make sure they don't see you when you weren't completely unseen already. But same applies ... if the DM rules that coming out from behind cover to attack makes you seem before you can make an attack, you've got a problem.

[Demonslayer666]

This seems like a straw man. It's not that they have no idea where you are. You're presumably somewhere behind that haystack. Point is they've lost track of you enough that you will pop out and shoot before they can be ready and you get advantage. They KNOW it's coming but they're so tensed up and you're just too quick for them!

A cunningless character, they can clearly see the edge of your head as you watch and wait for the right opening and they're ready for you. Or whatever. Point is, in the middle of combat it's purely an action cost + skill check to gain advantage that's a critical part of rogue class features. Don't over think it.

Aren't you strawmannig his argument by assuming it's a haystack? :smallsmile:

If you can lose track of them, yes, I agree they should still get stealth, but if they keep popping out from the same place without moving, there should be no stealth after the first couple times.

@OP: Mix up the combats a little and add more opponents and engage the rogue, or have less total cover from time to time. But I strongly agree with others here that said that this is not a big deal, rogues are not over powered.

[Man_Over_Game]

Also relevant is if the DM rules that you must be hidden as you make the attack, and what constitutes that.

I've if you lean around a corner or peek over a barrel to take a shot, do you break hiding and lose advantage before the attack? Seen it ruled that way, which made attacking out of darkness&hidden or being invisible&hidden about the only feasible option.

The problem there is that you now have to define what the difference is between being Unseen and being Hidden.

For example, enemy is behind a wall. The player the enemy is behind the wall. The enemy Hides. The player still knows the enemy is behind the wall. What changed by taking the Hide Action (which is roughly as valuable as an attack, based on comparing similar costs/uses of similar Action/Bonus Action features).

To me, that's not a feasible response. At least, not without providing appropriate justification as to why Hide has 2 racial features, a specialized feat, several spells, and a class (and a subclass) feature depending on it.

[Nagog]

This seems like a straw man. It's not that they have no idea where you are. You're presumably somewhere behind that haystack. Point is they've lost track of you enough that you will pop out and shoot before they can be ready and you get advantage. They KNOW it's coming but they're so tensed up and you're just too quick for them!

A cunningless character, they can clearly see the edge of your head as you watch and wait for the right opening and they're ready for you. Or whatever. Point is, in the middle of combat it's purely an action cost + skill check to gain advantage that's a critical part of rogue class features. Don't over think it.

If the enemy is tensed up and not ready for an attack they know is coming from the general direction of that hay stack, they're obviously not combat trained in the slightest. By the sounds of your reasoning, you play rogues frequently and use this tactic just as frequently.

As for the topic of the thread, once an enemy has been stabbed from an unexpected direction, they're going to be keeping an eye on that direction closely. Particularly with how much damage Sneak Attack dishes out. If they want to continue getting their sneak attack every round, they're going to need to find increasingly tactical ways to gain advantage until they have an ally flanking the enemy, at which point the enemy is outnumbered and there really isn't a way to out think that without turning tail and running, which may or may not be possible. The rogue is a good class in combat because they are offensive support, key being support. If the rogue is attempting to 1v1 an enemy, they're not going to do well. Conversely, in an all out brawl, Rogues are easily able to get the upper hand due to flanking, stealth through the chaos of battle, or other methods, as approved by RAW and/or the DM. If he wants easy, scaling damage output, play a monk.

[Xetheral]

The problem there is that you now have to define what the difference is between being Unseen and being Hidden.

For example, enemy is behind a wall. The player the enemy is behind the wall. The enemy Hides. The player still knows the enemy is behind the wall. What changed by taking the Hide Action (which is roughly as valuable as an attack, based on comparing similar costs/uses of similar Action/Bonus Action features).

To me, that's not a feasible response. At least, not without providing appropriate justification as to why Hide has 2 racial features, a specialized feat, several spells, and a class (and a subclass) feature depending on it.

I would say that prior to taking the hide action, if the DM determines that the character can hear the enemy, then the player can detect that the enemy is still behind the wall. Once the enemy successfully hides, the character can no longer detect the enemy's location. The player is welcome to infer that the creature is still behind the wall, but such an inference would be mistaken if the target has in fact moved.

For purposes of pop-up hiding, this also means that an enemy that can be heard behind a wall can be heard moving into firing position before taking the shot. Accordingly, the enemy does not receive advantage. If the enemy took the hide action first, however, there is no advance warning that the shot is coming. Ergo, the enemy gets advantage.

If the wall is far enough away (or the surrounding environment so loud) that the character couldn't hear the enemy behind the wall in the first place, then taking the hide action would indeed be superfluous, since the character couldn't detect the enemy's location in the first place.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would say that prior to taking the hide action, if the DM determines that the character can hear the enemy, then the player can detect that the enemy is still behind the wall. Once the enemy successfully hides, the character can no longer detect the enemy's location. The player is welcome to infer that the creature is still behind the wall, but such an inference would be mistaken if the target has in fact moved.

For purposes of pop-up hiding, this also means that an enemy that can be heard behind a wall can be heard moving into firing position before taking the shot. Accordingly, the enemy does not receive advantage. If the enemy took the hide action first, however, there is no advance warning that the shot is coming. Ergo, the enemy gets advantage.

If the wall is far enough away (or the surrounding environment so loud) that the character couldn't hear the enemy behind the wall in the first place, then taking the hide action would indeed be superfluous, since the character couldn't detect the enemy's location in the first place.

Ah, apologies, this was in response to someone stating that another possible interpretation is that a creature ceases to be hidden as soon as anything about them has potential to be seen, meaning you can't Hide and then get Advantage on your attack.

My rebuttal was that it was a nonsensical interpretation, because it effectively removes Hide as a mechanic. This becomes especially true if the benefit of hiding is being undetected through sound, as this means that something akin to 30 feet of distance is enough to make hiding irrelevant.

Combined, this means that:

Hiding only is beneficial against targets within 30 (or whatever) feet.
You cannot attack targets to get Advantage, as you'd be seen as soon as you attempted to look.
You cannot scout for targets, as you'd be seen as soon as you attempted to look.


Which means that Hiding is only good for when you're running away from someone who's within 30 (or so) feet from you? That's like "mid-level Ranger feature" levels of garbage.

[AdAstra]

The problem there is that you now have to define what the difference is between being Unseen and being Hidden.

For example, enemy is behind a wall. The player the enemy is behind the wall. The enemy Hides. The player still knows the enemy is behind the wall. What changed by taking the Hide Action (which is roughly as valuable as an attack, based on comparing similar costs/uses of similar Action/Bonus Action features).

To me, that's not a feasible response. At least, not without providing appropriate justification as to why Hide has 2 racial features, a specialized feat, several spells, and a class (and a subclass) feature depending on it.

I mean, the player (and the character) DOES know the enemy is behind that wall, unless the enemy uses the opportunity of being unseen to reposition, in which case the player is wrong about where the enemy is. Unless you want the player to just ignore what they and the character know (the enemy disappeared behind the wall), they're gonna know where the enemy hid. They'd still have disadvantage, or might not be able to attack at all if it's full cover. But, they know the position, and if they moved to a position where they can see the target, the target would presumably no longer be unseen or hidden (unless they moved somewhere else while hidden so that they're still unseen. If they were merely unseen, you might rule the players can still hear them move and thus know the position still)

Also, there is a definite difference between being unseen and being hidden. To hide, you must first be unseen, since you need heavy obscurement, unless you have a feature that explicitly allows you to hide behind other things. I would say that for those exceptions, successfully hiding would allow you to also become unseen, as well, since it doesn't really make sense any other way. Being unseen matters for more than just hiding, since many spells require you to see the target. Even if you know where they are, no sight, no targeting with those spells. Or invisibility, which renders you unseen, but has been explicitly stated to not automatically make you hidden, so you have to take the Hide action for people to not know your location.

I think I've made a decent case that there's no need to come up with a difference between Unseen and Hidden as game states, since the game already differentiates them. Unseen pretty much means what it means in real life, not being seen, but the game assumes you can still hear or otherwise discern the location of the unseen foe. Hidden is a little more defined, but also messier, since the game's not really explicit in telling you exactly when you're allowed to hide other than saying you must not be seen clearly and that you can't make noise, as well as some exceptions in other parts of the book.

The way I see it, being Unseen prevents people from seeing you, and provides advantage if you attack while still unseen (not popping in and out of cover, which would allow them to see you when you're making the attack). Hidden prevents you from being tracked, the enemy can't use things like hearing or smell to figure out where you go unless they make a Perception check, and my personal ruling is that if you can move sufficiently far while hidden (moving about 90 degrees across their field of view should be enough), you can still count as unseen when making the attack, since they would've lost track of you entirely.

[Man_Over_Game]

A solid statement on the differences between Unseen and Hidden

And I agree. My concern was for an interpretation where a Hidden attack doesn't provide Advantage.

Tanarii did bring up an excellent point, though. A DM might say that the player doesn't need to be Hidden, only Unseen, but that still suffers the same problem that there wouldn't be much reason to Hide. Rather, it seems apt to have a creature's location be unknown AND cause future actions to be potentially Unseen (even when out of full cover) by taking the Hide Action. It's the only way I could really see anyone justify using the Hide Action without the Rogue feature.

[Nhorianscum]

Enemies can hold actions for when the rouge is un-hidden. It completely tanks their action economy but as a not-jerkdm not-meta solution it works RAI, RAW, and is appropriately thematic.

Rouges hiding can be seen as either pop-in-pop-out or they can be obscured to the point of an enemy not knowing their position if they chose to move while or before being hidden so it's just more sane all around to hold action.

[Dalebert]

If you can't see the rogue, it doesn't matter that you know where they are, you don't know when the attack will be coming and can't read their movements to predict it. There is very little practical difference between an attack from someone that you can't see because they're behind a solid object and one from someone who is magically invisible whose location you know.

This. It doesn't matter if you know where they are for the purpose of them gaining adv. You can't see them and that's all they need. Being hidden doesn't mean they can't see you. It assumes you've hidden in such a way that you can still see.


Aren't you strawmannig his argument by assuming it's a haystack? :smallsmile:


I Grant you inspiration for that one!

[Zetakya]

So, I'm going to throw a curveball into this discussion.

Let's say you have a 14th level or higher Arcane Trickster who has cast the spell Blink on themselves.

While the spell in in effect there is a 50% chance of them leaving this plane of existence and entering the Ethereal Plane at the end of their turn and reappearing at a vacant location within 10 feet at the start of their next turn.

Is the character Unseen? Is the character Hidden? If the Character is either or both of these, when do they stop being either or both? And... do they get a Sneak Attack when they reappear?

[Man_Over_Game]

So, I'm going to throw a curveball into this discussion.

Let's say you have a 14th level or higher Arcane Trickster who has cast the spell Blink on themselves.

While the spell in in effect there is a 50% chance of them leaving this plane of existence and entering the Ethereal Plane at the end of their turn and reappearing at a vacant location within 10 feet at the start of their next turn.

Is the character Unseen? Is the character Hidden? If the Character is either or both of these, when do they stop being either or both? And... do they get a Sneak Attack when they reappear?

The main requirement to be Hidden is that you cannot be seen clearly (and you have DM's discretion). So I'd say that, as soon as that ceases to be true, you are revealed. If they were Hidden, they're still Hidden, until there's a reason for them not to be (like if they blinked in front of a bad guy). The caster in question knows more about the spell he cast than the enemies do, so it'd make sense that he'd plan on trying to remain hidden when he blinks back.


**************************************

Personally, I rule that Hidden is just a more "locked in" version of Unseen. That is, once you're Hidden, you're Unseen in circumstances where you might not normally be (like if behind 3/4 cover). Becoming Hidden either has a high economy cost (an Action), or it costs a class feature (Rogue Cunning Action), and it still has a chance for failure. So I make it pretty strong, effectively meaning "You're Unseen for as long as you're Hidden, and you're Hidden until you're obviously not".

As a side note, Dim Light is considered Lightly Obscured in the book, which is enough (for me) to have a creature maintain the Hidden status (but likely not enough to initiate it). Makes it that much creepier to be traveling through a dark woods, just to have one person succeed on their Perception check and realize they've been surrounded by a dozen drow.

[Warlush]

Wow, you guys.

You're the DM. You are IO. You are Asmodeous. You are the God of Gods. If a rogue is giving you trouble, wave something shiny in it's face and then force a CON save. It can only have so many hit points right?!?!

[Nagog]

So, I'm going to throw a curveball into this discussion.

Let's say you have a 14th level or higher Arcane Trickster who has cast the spell Blink on themselves.

While the spell in in effect there is a 50% chance of them leaving this plane of existence and entering the Ethereal Plane at the end of their turn and reappearing at a vacant location within 10 feet at the start of their next turn.

Is the character Unseen? Is the character Hidden? If the Character is either or both of these, when do they stop being either or both? And... do they get a Sneak Attack when they reappear?

I'd say yes, for the following reasons:

1. This combo takes a lot of levels to get into
2. The random triggering for Blink means it isn't on-demand, instantly viable sneak attack damage
3. Reducing your movement speed to 10 ft with the spell can really screw you over if somebody were to say, detonate a fireball in your vicinity.

So while it has the potential to be devastating as a combo, it's got enough exploitable weaknesses and random chance triggers to not be game-breaking

[Tanarii]

Ah, apologies, this was in response to someone stating that another possible interpretation is that a creature ceases to be hidden as soon as anything about them has potential to be seen, meaning you can't Hide and then get Advantage on your attack.

My rebuttal was that it was a nonsensical interpretation, because it effectively removes Hide as a mechanic. This becomes especially true if the benefit of hiding is being undetected through sound, as this means that something akin to 30 feet of distance is enough to make hiding irrelevant.
The times I've seen it so rules, it's still fine if you're attacking from darkness or some kind of opaque concealment you can see out of but they can't see you. (The time I saw the latter 'permitted' it was Foliage or fog cloud and standing in an edge square, looking at targets outside.)

I agree with your assessment that this makes many offensive uses of hiding less than effective, and very negatively impact Rogues.

As to needing to determine the difference between unseen and hidden, every DM needs to make that determination. Since you will inevitably end up with a character who is invisible, in darkness, or completely behind an object, and either makes no attempt to Hide or fails a check. In terms of gaining advantage when attacking, being unseen is all that's required. If you'd otherwise be seen and hiding is possible to make yourself unseen, then it has an offensive advantage.

Leaving aside a ruling against popping out of cover not being possible, one difference I've typically oseen ruled is when you're hidden making such attacks becomes possible, but when you're not you're instantly spotted so it's not possible. That certainly seems to be the assumption of many of the posters in this thread. So the offensive benefit of hiding is it enables such attacks. If you're attacking out of darkness or when invisible there's no point in offensive hiding, since you get advantage anyway. It's a defensive action so you're enemy can't target you.