Hiding in Combat

[wookietek]

My DM has decided that my rogue can no longer hide in combat. His justification is that once an enemy sees you then you can not hide from that enemy. The latest incident was when we were ambushed by a creature in the jungle. I tried to use my cunning action to hide behind a tree to take pot shots at the creature. He said it saw me already so hiding won't work. It'll know I'm behind the tree. Now we're talking thick jungle, 4 other players to occupy the creature's attention, and me having +11 in stealth all going to waste. I've compiled RAW argument in my favor for if/when I go back to that game, but figured the hive mind here could help me along more than a little.

[Civis Mundi]

My DM has decided that my rogue can no longer hide in combat. His justification is that once an enemy sees you then you can not hide from that enemy. The latest incident was when we were ambushed by a creature in the jungle. I tried to use my cunning action to hide behind a tree to take pot shots at the creature. He said it saw me already so hiding won't work. It'll know I'm behind the tree. Now we're talking thick jungle, 4 other players to occupy the creature's attention, and me having +11 in stealth all going to waste. I've compiled RAW argument in my favor for if/when I go back to that game, but figured the hive mind here could help me along more than a little.

I suggest talking to your DM to figure out a solution. The Basic Rules themselves state (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#OtherDexterityChecks) (emphasis mine):


The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

I still don't think there's no argument for hiding in combat, but it will require a compromise with your DM. This thread (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/91366/can-the-rogue-repeatedly-hide-in-combat-to-sneak-attack-the-same-enemy) discusses how one might hide anew after attacking from range. This tweet (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/) from Mearls in 2014 suggests simply imposing Disadvantage on the check to hide again. Either solution may end up working for your table.

[Man_Over_Game]

My DM has decided that my rogue can no longer hide in combat. His justification is that once an enemy sees you then you can not hide from that enemy. The latest incident was when we were ambushed by a creature in the jungle. I tried to use my cunning action to hide behind a tree to take pot shots at the creature. He said it saw me already so hiding won't work. It'll know I'm behind the tree. Now we're talking thick jungle, 4 other players to occupy the creature's attention, and me having +11 in stealth all going to waste. I've compiled RAW argument in my favor for if/when I go back to that game, but figured the hive mind here could help me along more than a little.

The trick isn't to appeal to law - choosing how to interpret/modify the rules to the table is part of his job - the trick is to appeal to justice.

Mention that:


Cunning Action explicitly mentions the Hide Action, a useless component and a major part of the class. Why have it be usable as a Bonus Action when it would functionally be the same as taking the Hide Action out of combat with his ruling?
Multiple Rogue subclasses explicitly mention Stealth and Hiding as required mechanics. Wouldn't this decision inherently make these options worse?
Multiple Rogue features explicitly mention skills, which the Hide Action calls for. Removing that synergy from Cunning Action now means there are no core means of utilizing a skill-based Action as a Bonus Action.
Lightfoot Halflings can hide behind larger creatures. What's the functional benefit of that when creatures constantly are moving?
If you can only be proactively Hidden against a creature, why do the rules state you must compare your Stealth check against their Passive Perception at the time of the check?


5e is like almost any board game and has the Golden Rule that states that any standard rule is to assume to be true until the rarest/newest exception states otherwise. From another perspective, every exception has to be relevant (such as with the case of Hiding as a Bonus Action), as the only other interpretation is that the developers added something that never was supposed to do anything (which contradicts the developers' design goal towards common sense).

[Cheesegear]

My DM has decided that my rogue can no longer hide in combat. [...] He said it saw me already so hiding won't work. It'll know I'm behind the tree.

I, too, rule that not all hostiles are stupid, and object permanence is a thing that even babies develop.
If you want to Hide in Combat, you have to not be exactly where the enemy knows you are. Typically, this involves moving during your turn. If moving would cause you to break cover, you're not Hiding.

I go behind the wall.
I move 25ft. to the other edge.
Using my Bonus Action, I hide/stealth.
Using my Action, I attack with Advantage.

[Kyutaru]

My DM has decided that my rogue can no longer hide in combat. His justification is that once an enemy sees you then you can not hide from that enemy. The latest incident was when we were ambushed by a creature in the jungle. I tried to use my cunning action to hide behind a tree to take pot shots at the creature. He said it saw me already so hiding won't work. It'll know I'm behind the tree. Now we're talking thick jungle, 4 other players to occupy the creature's attention, and me having +11 in stealth all going to waste. I've compiled RAW argument in my favor for if/when I go back to that game, but figured the hive mind here could help me along more than a little.

Mate, advise your DM that I can hide from him in combat even in real life. When there's a battle going on between multiple people you can't rightly keep track of who's where at all times. Sneaking up behind you is something people do all the time without invisibility even if you had eyes on them ten seconds ago. Using cover on top of that should be at advantage.

[Keravath]

Some folks really misunderstand what hiding in combat really means. (at least as far as I interpret it).

Hiding in combat means that the target has no advance warning of whatever action you are about to take. It doesn't matter if the target knows what tree you are behind, if you succeed on a hide check the target can't guess when you are going to pop out and shoot so they don't have as much warning and you have a better chance to hit.

It has nothing to do with the defender suddenly becoming unaware and not knowing where an attacker is ... it has to do with not having the same amount of warning that an attack is imminent that you would if you were still aware of the exact location of the attacker.

If a character fails a stealth check, it is an indication that they made enough noise to warn the defender an attack was coming, or they didn't quite get all of them under cover so the defender is still aware when the attack is initiated.

So from this perspective, as long as there is something for a character to hide behind that can make them unseen then a hide check should be possible.

-----

However, lets look at things from the side of fairness. A rogue has one attack. If they miss they do no damage that round. Every other martial gets more attacks. They either have 2 or 3 attacks depending on whether they have PAM or Xbow expert feats or not. My variant human paladin with a spear and the dueling fighting style and PAM has 3 attacks ... 2x (d6+6), 1x (d4+6) for average damage if they all hit 27.5 at 5th level and 18 attack stat. They can also smite on top of that. The rogue has d8+4 + 3d6 on one attack, if it hits and IF there is an enemy of the target adjacent to it to enable sneak attack. This is 19 damage. My 5th level ranged fighter with crossbow expert has 3 (d6+4) attacks for 22.5 damage, they also have +2 for the archery fighting style.

If the rogue is making a ranged attack into a melee through a square containing an ally, the target has partial cover which increases the target AC by 2. The rogue unlike the fighter or ranger has no way to compensate for this.

In addition, if the best target to shoot does not have an ally adjacent then most rogues do not have a method to generate advantage to enable sneak attack. They get one attack with their bow for d8+stat.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the ability of the rogue to use cunning action to hide in combat assuming there is appropriate cover available is part of the class balance. Without it, the rogue will fall far behind most martials in damage unless you are playing in a group of folks that don't optimize at all and with a DM who doesn't use the cover rules in melee to penalize ranged attacks through allies. Even if the rogue can manage to obtain advantage and sneak on every attack, they can still do less damage than several martial classes. The paladin mentioned above will be adding d8 to every attack at level 11 in addition to maxing their attack stat. The fighter will have four attacks with xbow expert (each of which can add the attack stat to damage) while the rogue is left with a 6d6 sneak attack for an average of 21 damage IF it hits.

Keeping in mind that the rogue won't always have suitable cover to hide behind and that there will be times when they won't get sneak attack because the conditions aren't met ... the rogue needs to get advantage through hiding just to keep up (at least in my opinion :) ). This is also why ranged rogues have a bit of an edge over melee rogues though an arcane trickster with shadow blade has some tools to generate advantage as well.

[Demonslayer666]

I allow hiding in combat after being seen but it only works a couple times if you keep popping out from the same spot.

Maybe you could talk to your DM and ask for it to work until they catch on. Or you could try to vary it up to throw them off, miss a turn once in a while, or relocate.

Never being able to hide once combat starts makes hide as a bonus action worthless. There has to be a time where it does work, you need to figure that out with your DM.

[wookietek]

I wouldn't mind if he disallowed me to hide repeatedly in the same spot, but he won't let me hide at all once combat starts. I don't mind savvy opponents either, but he won't EVER let me use this feature. I should at least be able to hide in thick jungle from one creature that is being attacked by my 4 other party members

[Civis Mundi]

I wouldn't mind if he disallowed me to hide repeatedly in the same spot, but he won't let me hide at all once combat starts. I don't mind savvy opponents either, but he won't EVER let me use this feature. I should at least be able to hide in thick jungle from one creature that is being attacked by my 4 other party members

I agree with you there. If it were at my table, I would let you move behind some patch of cover and roll to Hide again. This would get under my skin as a player too, don't get me wrong. But unfortunately it's up to him -- in fact, even if the rules supported you explicitly, it would be up to him at the end of the day. If he still refuses, you'll have to seek other sources of sneak attack -- don't forget that you get sneak attack even without advantage if "another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll." That, or seek another DM.

[Man_Over_Game]

lol, thinking about it, all of the video games with stealth mechanics that did this were decidedly unfun and bad when it came to stealth. The ones that were fun always allowed the option of breaking line of sight to attempt stealth mid-fight.

[elyktsorb]

I'd ask to roll a new character or quit the game tbh. He basically just said 'yeah, screw you'

[Christew]

Cunning Action explicitly mentions the Hide Action, a useless component and a major part of the class. Why have it be usable as a Bonus Action when it would functionally be the same as taking the Hide Action out of combat with his ruling?

This.

I wouldn't mind if he disallowed me to hide repeatedly in the same spot, but he won't let me hide at all once combat starts. I don't mind savvy opponents either, but he won't EVER let me use this feature. I should at least be able to hide in thick jungle from one creature that is being attacked by my 4 other party members
What exactly does your DM think that the Hide portion of Cunning Action is for if not use in combat? Easier to help if we can understand his reasoning. As others have pointed out, this interpretation is a pretty crippling nerf to Rogue.

[clash]

If you cant use hide action effectively as the rogue, see if you can change your build. What subclass are you? If you can use inquisitive and change your expertise from stealth to insight this becomes a non-issue for getting sneak attack.

[tKUUNK]

using the jungle example, another way to describe your character's actions, to make it believable (and even fun) for the DM:

I shoot, then I duck back behind the wide tree trunk, making sure the enemy knows I'm there. I make a show of ducking down in place, making sure to be out of view.

THEN...I stealthily slip off, about 15 feet away from that tree, using the brush to conceal my movement. (this is your BA hide)

This is obviously dependent on the terrain & environment, but it helps show how BA hide makes more sense than we give credit.

[Avonar]

I mean it very much depends. I don't allow someone to roll to hide as soon as they are out of sight, I feel that gives the Rogue far too easy a way to gain advantage. If you go behind a tree, they probably know you're behind a tree. My compromise for this is when the rogue does something to actually try and hide. They duck behind a tree, then climb it? Yes, roll to hide, they aren't expecting you to be up there. Move behind a building and then round to the other side of it? Sure. As long as you aren't just reappearing in the exact same spot you when out of sight in, I'll allow you to try.

One thing to mention as well is that intelligent enemies can communicate with each other. If one person sees you duck behind a rock, they may well tell their allies that you did, the same as the other players will do if an enemy tries to hide.

I have this problem a lot with stealth checks, with some players trying to stealthily move across a person's field of vision. You can be as quiet as you like, they will see you.

[Captain Panda]

I've changed my mind on this a few times over the years. Rogues just assuming that they can hide behind a box that a monster just saw them run behind... yeah, that's irritating, and I won't allow that. But if you're in combat and there is a justifiable context, the rules leave it up to the DM's judgment pretty explicitly. Sometimes it can make sense. If you're in a thick jungle and the creature is fighting several creatures and just got punched in the face and you hide behind a tree I'd allow it. I wouldn't allow you to keep hiding behind that same tree round after round, though.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've changed my mind on this a few times over the years. Rogues just assuming that they can hide behind a box that a monster just saw them run behind... yeah, that's irritating, and I won't allow that. But if you're in combat and there is a justifiable context, the rules leave it up to the DM's judgment pretty explicitly. Sometimes it can make sense. If you're in a thick jungle and the creature is fighting several creatures and just got punched in the face and you hide behind a tree I'd allow it. I wouldn't allow you to keep hiding behind that same tree round after round, though.

Problem is then addressing the Lightfoot Halfling's racial feature, which allows them to hide behind creatures larger than them. In what situation would it be plausible that you could hide behind the Goliath that everyone can see while everyone doesn't know that you're there?

For me, this indicates that the mechanic isn't wrong, but my interpretation of it is.

Realistically speaking, the enemy must know that the Halfling is there if the Halfling ever needs to use that feature, which means to me that the Hide Action is not about making your location unknown, despite my interpretation of it deciding otherwise.




Or, put another way, if "you could hide behind the Goliath that everyone can see" must be true, and "while everyone doesn't know that you're there?" can't be, it makes the most sense to remove the second half as that's the part I made up.

[Cheesegear]

Realistically speaking, the enemy must know that the Halfling is there if the Halfling ever needs to use that feature, which means to me that the Hide Action is not about making your location unknown, despite my interpretation of it deciding otherwise.

Which is why I rule that if you want to Hide during Combat, after the enemy has seen you, you must also move before you Attack, and during that move, your enemy should not be able to draw LoS to you.
My players' Rogues Hide all the time in combat - even with the above ruling. I've watched them do it.

But:
This is why getting ambushed, sucks. Your enemy has already seen you.
This is why fighting in open areas, sucks, because in order to move, you have to break cover.

I've also watched my party get hugely disadvantaged in many ways, when ambushed on the road. The Rogue not getting sneak attack, is arguably the least problematic thing about being ambushed in the open.

[da newt]

If you are unseen when you attack, you attack with advantage. Pg 195 PHB.

It's really just that simple - you cannot defend or dodge an attack you do not see coming.

(yes you can decide to bob and weave erratically to make yourself a more difficult target, but you are not able to dodge/parry an attack you do not see coming)

If your DM insists you cannot hide or be unseen, change your rogue into a barbarian and reckless, become a samurai/swashbuckler/vengeance pali and announce your advantage, change to a Kobold and pack tactics everything, find familiar an owl to Help every attack, etc.

[Yora]

I mean it very much depends. I don't allow someone to roll to hide as soon as they are out of sight, I feel that gives the Rogue far too easy a way to gain advantage. If you go behind a tree, they probably know you're behind a tree. My compromise for this is when the rogue does something to actually try and hide. They duck behind a tree, then climb it? Yes, roll to hide, they aren't expecting you to be up there. Move behind a building and then round to the other side of it? Sure. As long as you aren't just reappearing in the exact same spot you when out of sight in, I'll allow you to try.

I interprate it similarly: You can only hide from an enemy if that enemy does not have line of sight to your chosen hiding place.

Run around the corner and quickly hide in a barrel? Sure.
Run into another room and hide behind a curtain? Of Course.

But you can not climb into a barrel and hide while someone sees you getting into the barrel.
You can not hide behind a curtain if someone sees you get behind the curtain.

The action of getting into a hiding place must already happen out of sight.

Which means it's only going to be relevant if an enemy is right behind you and pursuing. Otherwise combat ends and you can just hide normally. In that situation, being able to hide as a bonus action is a neat ability, as it lets you move, hide, and interact with an object in the same round. Or throw a smoke bomb, move, and then hide.

(On the other hand, opening locks as a bonus action is something I just don't allow. That's stupid. I let a third level thief use Thief Tools as a regular action, while making it take 1 minute for anyone else.)

[Flallen]

I've changed my mind on this a few times over the years. Rogues just assuming that they can hide behind a box that a monster just saw them run behind... yeah, that's irritating, and I won't allow that. But if you're in combat and there is a justifiable context, the rules leave it up to the DM's judgment pretty explicitly. Sometimes it can make sense. If you're in a thick jungle and the creature is fighting several creatures and just got punched in the face and you hide behind a tree I'd allow it. I wouldn't allow you to keep hiding behind that same tree round after round, though.

I'm generally in the camp of expecting rogues to do some descriptive work and movement in order to hide again, but this is in part because the rogue players in my game ALSO think it is stupid to play Elven jack-in-the-box with the enemy. I think the encounter design in D&D is a part of the problem here. I have found that many creatures are too frail or immobile to actually threaten a character that is able to hide in total or 75% cover 30 ft away and take pot shots. For humanoids I wanted to use alchemists fire to target squares which would then burn for the remainder of the combat unless resources are expended to extinguish.

RAW supports hiding in place though, so if I was playing with someone who was particularly upset about it I would probably switch to the alternative system of, enemies will hunt down the less armored person who hurts more.


Problem is then addressing the Lightfoot Halfling's racial feature, which allows them to hide behind creatures larger than them. In what situation would it be plausible that you could hide behind the Goliath that everyone can see while everyone doesn't know that you're there?

For me, this indicates that the mechanic isn't wrong, but my interpretation of it is.

I think you are correct on this, but I also think that if I were to have my villain misty step behind the Goliath or walk around the cover specifically to stab the rogue that most players would feel cheated.

[wookietek]

My players' Rogues Hide all the time in combat - even with the above ruling. I've watched them do it.


I guess they didn't make the stealth DC if you watched them do it, lol

Again I don't have a problem working towards hiding. I don't think it should be an automatic roll to see if you are hidden. But this guy flat out won't let me attempt to hide in a thick freaking jungle. There are plenty of trees and flora to hide and sneak around. He just says no. Once they see you then they always know where you are. It doesn't matter if I break LoS and move around out of sight.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think you are correct on this, but I also think that if I were to have my villain misty step behind the Goliath or walk around the cover specifically to stab the rogue that most players would feel cheated.

But that's why Rogues do that, and most effects like that either require your Bonus Action or an Action. We're not talking about a mage or a knight using 1-2 bonus actions to gank someone, we're talking about a ninja dodging behind an obstacle to make a crossbow shot that's unpredictable.

For fairly mediocre damage. It's not bad damage, but we're talking about like a jump from ~6 to ~15 damage, when Fighters do ~10 per attack and do 4-5 in one turn by level 5.

Reality is, all not allowing Hiding is doing is making it so that the Rogue goes from a 90% chance to hit down to 60%, and he now needs an ally adjacent to his target. When was the last time you ever saw a Rogue make an attack that wasn't a Sneak Attack?

Hell, you might actually be making damage numbers worse, since the Rogue now has to rely more on damage as a means of contribution, since solving a problem through subterfuge may no longer be worthwhile. Why assume stealth could solve a problem when it doesn't seem like a great option to begin with?

"Hiding each turn" sounds a lot worse than it actually is. What exactly is it hurting?


[Edit] I misunderstood what you were saying, my bad. The bad guy doesn't have to attack the Rogue, repositioning is generally all it takes. Or maybe you decided that the enemy is particularly aware of the Rogue's antics and is specifically watching him, distracting the bad guy from something else. Awareness during chaos is a lot harder than watching chess pieces move on a board, which is why Flanking is a thing (and likely why Sneak Attack has an adjacent ally condition).

[Contrast]

If you DM thinks the 'pop up rogue' concept is silly you can try and argue all day (its not that they don't know you're there - its that they can't keep tabs on you and anticipate the attack when you pop out of cover, the advantage is from being unseen not from them forgetting you exist) but its probably simpler and more likely to work if you just avoid the argument.

I would highly recommended the Class Features UA (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf) which gives rogues an additional use for their Cunning Action - they can aim as a bonus action, giving them advantage on the next attack that turn provided they don't move.

[clash]

Honestly this is a case of a DM altering game mechanics, that are well balanced because they dont like the fluff. If you have a problem with the fluff, change the fluff, not the balanced game mechanics. If they are going to change the game mechanics, change them to something equally good for the player.

Going to neuter hide? Replace it with feint as a bonus action using sleight of hand.

Dont just neuter class abilities you dont like the theme of, paying no attention to the class balance.

[Keravath]

Problem is then addressing the Lightfoot Halfling's racial feature, which allows them to hide behind creatures larger than them. In what situation would it be plausible that you could hide behind the Goliath that everyone can see while everyone doesn't know that you're there?

For me, this indicates that the mechanic isn't wrong, but my interpretation of it is.

Realistically speaking, the enemy must know that the Halfling is there if the Halfling ever needs to use that feature, which means to me that the Hide Action is not about making your location unknown, despite my interpretation of it deciding otherwise.


Or, put another way, if "you could hide behind the Goliath that everyone can see" must be true, and "while everyone doesn't know that you're there?" can't be, it makes the most sense to remove the second half as that's the part I made up.

EXACTLY :) ... I tried to make this point earlier but didn't do a good job.

Hiding is NOT a defender not knowing where the attacker is (they might know exactly where they are [behind a tree, around a corner, behind a box]) ... it is the defender not being aware of what the attacker is doing (since they can't see or hear them anymore) so the defender does not know if and when the attacker is going to attack or take any other action. As a result, the attacker gets advantage on its attack rolls because being hidden reduces the reaction time of the defender.

[Philsco]

In a jungle? I mean, freakin' soldiers who were just shooting loud weapons at each other and shouting and throwing grenades were able to hide and sneak up on each other to slit their throats, so I don't see why a fantasy character couldn't do it.

RAW states that you can hide up to the DM's discretion, so that's really the barring factor. If he lets it stand, you have to just beat their PERCEPTION check. Honestly, if the creature is distracted (fighting someone else) and you slip away out of sight, they aren't going to have a Halo-style Enemy Radar in their HUD, and have to rely on their PERCEPTION to find you, which is versus your STEALTH roll.

Now, making pot shots at it will likely give your position away, unless you have a feat or other ability which lets you do such a thing. Still, you'd get that backstab goodness. You need to have a legitimate talk with your DM, tell them you think he's stifling the main point to your PC, and work together to come to an understanding.