Does Skulker allow stealth sniping?

[Greywander]

When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.
So let's say you're hidden from a group of four goblins.
You take your first shot and miss. Your position isn't revealed. (Does this mean you don't break stealth? Breaking stealth would reveal your position.)
You take your second shot and hit gobbo #1, insta-killing it.
Since you didn't miss gobbo #1, your position is revealed to it. However, gobbo #1 is dead.
Your attack did not hit gobbos #2, #3, or #4, which therefore means you missed them. Your position is not revealed to them.

I think the intention is that your position is revealed in general if the attack hits, however the way it's worded makes it sound like your position is only ever revealed to the target of your attack, not to any bystanders. Then again, this might actually be intentional. In the above scenario, so long as you continue one-shotting the gobbos, you can maintain stealth, but the moment you fail to kill a goblin it will alert the others. If it doesn't give your exact position away, it will at least point in your direction. That said, even if they don't know where the attacks are coming from they're not going to just stand around waiting to get shot. They'll dive behind cover (which might be facing the wrong direction to protect them) or run to get help or sound an alarm.

Even if this is how it's intended to work, it's still pretty niche. It would mostly only matter when you can bring your target down in one shot, or at least in one turn if you can make multiple attacks. While handy, these are probably the enemies that you least need the extra help with; it's the enemies you can't one-shot that you'd want to be able to maintain stealth against.

[OldTrees1]

So let's say you're hidden from a group of four goblins.
You take your first shot and miss. Your position isn't revealed. (Does this mean you don't break stealth? Breaking stealth would reveal your position.)
You take your second shot and hit gobbo #1, insta-killing it.
Since you didn't miss gobbo #1, your position is revealed to it. However, gobbo #1 is dead.
Sure, your position is not revealed since your attack missed. 5E stealth has lots of DM dependent rulings but I suspect many would agree you are still hidden.


Your attack did not hit gobbos #2, #3, or #4, which therefore means you missed them. Your position is not revealed to them.
Hold up a moment.
"Your attack did not hit gobbos #2, #3, or #4" is true but ", which therefore means you missed them" does not follow. You attacked and hit gobbo #1. Gobbos #2 etc were not the target of the attack and thus it does not make sense to claim you missed them.



Now, if you had some arrow that pierced right through gobbo #1 and continued to attack the gobbo #2 standing behind them, then maybe missing gobbo #2 might avoid your position being revealed.



Now there is another underlying question, if you did not have skulker, and one shot gobbo #1, do the other gobbos notice and spot you. That question might require more context, DM rulings, and maybe some dice. However it is complete independent of what skulker does when you miss.

[Samayu]

There's nothing in the wording of the rule to indicate that your position is not revealed to goblin 2 when you hit goblin 1.

Your position is generally revealed when you make an attack. Skulker says it is not revealed if you miss. You didn't miss.

[Unoriginal]

So let's say you're hidden from a group of four goblins.
You take your first shot and miss. Your position isn't revealed. (Does this mean you don't break stealth? Breaking stealth would reveal your position.)
You take your second shot and hit gobbo #1, insta-killing it.
Since you didn't miss gobbo #1, your position is revealed to it. However, gobbo #1 is dead.
Your attack did not hit gobbos #2, #3, or #4, which therefore means you missed them. Your position is not revealed to them.

I think the intention is that your position is revealed in general if the attack hits, however the way it's worded makes it sound like your position is only ever revealed to the target of your attack, not to any bystanders. Then again, this might actually be intentional. In the above scenario, so long as you continue one-shotting the gobbos, you can maintain stealth, but the moment you fail to kill a goblin it will alert the others. If it doesn't give your exact position away, it will at least point in your direction. That said, even if they don't know where the attacks are coming from they're not going to just stand around waiting to get shot. They'll dive behind cover (which might be facing the wrong direction to protect them) or run to get help or sound an alarm.

Even if this is how it's intended to work, it's still pretty niche. It would mostly only matter when you can bring your target down in one shot, or at least in one turn if you can make multiple attacks. While handy, these are probably the enemies that you least need the extra help with; it's the enemies you can't one-shot that you'd want to be able to maintain stealth against.

Your attack successfully hit and killed goblin #1. If the other goblins are able to notice the fact you killed their ally, your position is revealed.

You cannot say that you missed #2, ,#3 or #4 unless you tried to hit them. Successfully hitting #1 after aiming at them isn't missing.

[Kane0]

I think the intent is 'you do not reveal your position', but the 'from a creature' and 'miss it' parts get in the way of that.

[Aimeryan]

I think the intent is 'you do not reveal your position', but the 'from a creature' and 'miss it' parts get in the way of that.

Its kind of a linguistic issue. Lets say you want to attack 'Bob'. You see two people. You attack one, thinking it is Bob. Turns out the other person was Bob. Did you miss hitting Bob?
Usually we would say yes to that, since you hit the other person. However, there was intent to hit Bob.

If we go by intent, can you not intend to hit a group of creatures? If you say you want to hit the 'group of goblins' and take multiple shots. Did you miss hitting an individual of that group that was not hit?

[Mastikator]

Its kind of a linguistic issue. Lets say you want to attack 'Bob'. You see two people. You attack one, thinking it is Bob. Turns out the other person was Bob. Did you miss hitting Bob?
Usually we would say yes to that, since you hit the other person. However, there was intent to hit Bob.

If we go by intent, can you not intend to hit a group of creatures? If you say you want to hit the 'group of goblins' and take multiple shots. Did you miss hitting an individual of that group that was not hit?

Making a ranged attack is a discrete action, taking multiple shots are multiple discrete actions. Miss all and your position remains hidden. Hit once and your position is revealed.

[Kane0]

Making a ranged attack is a discrete action, taking multiple shots are multiple discrete actions. Miss all and your position remains hidden. Hit once and your position is revealed.

Yes, by strict reading the feat only appears to take into account that particular attack against that particular creature, so other variables remain in the default state of 'attacking reveals your position'
Which i'm under the impression is an unintentional consequence for the feat and its users, but it could indeed be the case where it is only supposed to help against isolated targets you fail to assassinate 'properly'

[Mastikator]

Yes, by strict reading the feat only appears to take into account that particular attack against that particular creature, so other variables remain in the default state of 'attacking reveals your position'
Which i'm under the impression is an unintentional consequence for the feat and its users, but it could indeed be the case where it is only supposed to help against isolated targets you fail to assassinate 'properly'

A strict reading tells us that you only remain hidden to the creature you missed, and you are revealed to all others. A player favorable reading tells us that if you miss you simply remain hidden, but if you hit you are always revealed to everyone. In no way can you hit one creature, claim you missed the others and remain hidden to them.

[Aimeryan]

Making a ranged attack is a discrete action, taking multiple shots are multiple discrete actions. Miss all and your position remains hidden. Hit once and your position is revealed.

Multiple shots were mentioned only to kind of head off the idea that there was not intent to hit multiple creatures:

3 enemies; Ann, Bob, Chris.
I intend to hit them. I have three shots.
I aim at Chris and shoot, I miss.
I try again to shoot Chris, and miss again.
I shoot at Chris again, and I finally hit.
Have I thus far missed hitting Ann and Bob?
If you say no, does it matter that I am now out of arrows?

Arguably, any shot that doesn't hit a potential target has missed that target, even if it hits another target. It doesn't linguistically matter how well you were aiming at that particular target. If I carpet bomb an area and don't hit a potential target (but do hit others), I missed hitting that target. If I shoot a gatling gun at a group of targets and don't hit some of them, I missed hitting those targets. If I see a group of targets and shoot using a sniper rifle, one shot at a time, and some manage to hide before I could get to them, I missed hitting those targets.

[Unoriginal]

Multiple shots were mentioned only to kind of head off the idea that there was not intent to hit multiple creatures:

3 enemies; Ann, Bob, Chris.
I intend to hit them. I have three shots.
I aim at Chris and shoot, I miss.
I try again to shoot Chris, and miss again.
I shoot at Chris again, and I finally hit.
Have I thus far missed hitting Ann and Bob?

You haven't tried to hit them, so you did not miss them.


If I carpet bomb an area and don't hit a potential target (but do hit others), I missed hitting that target.

I'd argue that when you carpet bomb an area, the area itself is the target.

[Aimeryan]

You haven't tried to hit them, so you did not miss them.

You aim at a target in the middle of a crowd. You wait for a clear shot. It presents itself and you shoot. At that moment someone else decides to walk in front of the target. They pass by just before the shot hits home. You just missed hitting that person.

Trying to hit something is not neccessary. As long as you did not hit, you missed hitting it. Skulker says nothing about intent.

I only presented intent in order to make it easier to point out that you can have targets that you did not hit because you did not aim well enough to do so (which the examples I gave did), which included aiming more carefully at a different target. However, if that is too contentious, we can just ignore intent, like Skulker does.

[Unoriginal]

You aim at a target in the middle of a crowd. You wait for a clear shot. It presents itself and you shoot. At that moment someone else decides to walk in front of the target. They pass by just before the shot hits home. You just missed hitting that person.

Trying to hit something is not neccessary. As long as you did not hit, you missed hitting it. Skulker says nothing about intent.

In order to miss something, you need to aim at said something and do the attack.

If Person A walks between you and the target and you don't shoot Person A while firing your weapon, then you haven't missed hitting Person A. You can say that the *shot* missed them, sure, because it's an expression, but not that *you* missed them.

If Person A walks between you and the target and you don't fire your weapon, you have not missed Person A or the target, since the shot was not taken at all.

Furthermore, in the example you gave and to which I responded, Chris was the only one who was ever in the trajectory. Ann and Bob may have been next on the list of persons to kill, but if Chris is the only one who was targeted, then you can't have missed your shots at Ann and Bob.


Skulker's text says that if you miss with your attack, your location isn't revealed, period. It doesn't say that it's not revealed to the target of the attack only.

So if a Skulker-having sniper is trying to shoot Ann, Bob and Chris, and they miss their first attack on Chris, the sniper remains hidden. But as soon as they hit Chris, they're no longer hidden.

[da newt]

I believe the INTENT is 'if you miss everyone w/ your attack, no one notices - if your attack hits anyone, everyone notices.' I agree the feat is worded vaguely.

[Greywander]

There's nothing in the wording of the rule to indicate that your position is not revealed to goblin 2 when you hit goblin 1.

Your position is generally revealed when you make an attack. Skulker says it is not revealed if you miss. You didn't miss.
The wording says, "When you are hidden from a creature..." You're hidden from all of them. It makes it sound like it's on a creature by creature basis.

Though I suppose the wording for not revealing your position is more general and not specific to that one creature. It doesn't say, "your position isn't revealed to that creature." Otherwise, we could also argue that attacking reveals your position by default, and thus missing gobbo #1 would still reveal your position to gobbo #2, since your attack wasn't directed at them.

[Mastikator]

Multiple shots were mentioned only to kind of head off the idea that there was not intent to hit multiple creatures:

3 enemies; Ann, Bob, Chris.
I intend to hit them. I have three shots.
I aim at Chris and shoot, I miss.
I try again to shoot Chris, and miss again.
I shoot at Chris again, and I finally hit.
Have I thus far missed hitting Ann and Bob?
If you say no, does it matter that I am now out of arrows?

Arguably, any shot that doesn't hit a potential target has missed that target, even if it hits another target. It doesn't linguistically matter how well you were aiming at that particular target. If I carpet bomb an area and don't hit a potential target (but do hit others), I missed hitting that target. If I shoot a gatling gun at a group of targets and don't hit some of them, I missed hitting those targets. If I see a group of targets and shoot using a sniper rifle, one shot at a time, and some manage to hide before I could get to them, I missed hitting those targets.
Ok fine. Every arrow eventually hit the ground, a wall or an object even if it missed its intended target. You didn't intend to hit the wall behind them, but you did hit. Therefore your position is revealed after the first missed target.

[OvisCaedo]

I know it's just a game mechanic, but seeing this discussed at all really drives in how... completely nonsensible the mechanic is.

[Unoriginal]

The wording says, "When you are hidden from a creature..." You're hidden from all of them. It makes it sound like it's on a creature by creature basis.

Though I suppose the wording for not revealing your position is more general and not specific to that one creature. It doesn't say, "your position isn't revealed to that creature." Otherwise, we could also argue that attacking reveals your position by default, and thus missing gobbo #1 would still reveal your position to gobbo #2, since your attack wasn't directed at them.

Exactly, the default is that any attack rmakes you stop being hidden for everyone who can perceive you, the feat makes so only a successful attack does it.

[Aimeryan]

Exactly, the default is that any attack rmakes you stop being hidden for everyone who can perceive you, the feat makes so only a successful attack does it.

Thats arguable - a suppressed shot would not alert people of the general position of incoming fire (which is the very point of it), which could very well be what this SKULKER feat intends. If the point was meant to be that a only a successful attack reveals your position to everyone in reality (doesn't actually make you seen and/or heard, so technically still hidden), then why not say that?

OldTrees1 made a good point in post 2 about whether the default rules even do this; the wording of 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' only discusses the creature the attack is made against. There is no provision for creatures not part of the attack.

[Unoriginal]

Thats arguable - a suppressed shot would not alert people of the general position of incoming fire (which is the very point of it), which could very well be what this SKULKER feat intends

There's ways to attack and re-hide, but that's clearly not what the feat gives as benefit.


If the point was meant to be that a only a successful attack reveals your position to everyone in reality (doesn't actually make you seen and/or heard, so technically still hidden)

The rules state you are no longer hidden once you've done the attack, as a default.



then why not say that?

Wouldn't be the first time they went for a more complicated wording than necessary.



OldTrees1 made a good point in post 2 about whether the default rules even do this; the wording of 'Unseen Attackers and Targets' only discusses the creature the attack is made against. There is no provision for creatures not part of the attack.

I can see the point, but the fact remains that what Skulket does is that you remain hidden if your attack is not successful, regardlessof whom your attempt would have revealed yourself to otherwise.

[Aimeryan]

The rules state you are no longer hidden once you've done the attack, as a default.

The rules say your position is revealed, not that you are no longer hidden. Hidden is given as being unseen and unheard - both of which may still be true. Consider an artillery piece; you can calculate the position based of the trajectory of a projectile fired, but it may still be hidden behind a hill.

A Wisdom (Perception) is required to detect something. I give advantage to the check if you know the position, which may bump up the passive check enough. Otherwise, they can roll with advantage using an action (and they now know to do so since they have been alerted).

---


I can see the point, but the fact remains that what Skulket does is that you remain hidden if your attack is not successful, regardlessof whom your attempt would have revealed yourself to otherwise.

If only the creature would have been alerted by default then Skulker now removes that if you miss. If you kill the creature then it doesn't matter even if they were alerted since they aren't telling anyone. Note that the DM can always have passive Perception checks made against anything else that could be perceived - so the arrow in flight, the arrow on the ground, the body on the ground (with said arrow in it), etc. In this situation Skulker only makes missing not auto-alert the creature aimed at since other creatures were not auto-alerted anyway (again, other perceptive qualities apply - if you lob a grenade the explosion itself is still going to likely alert them, if not the missed attack).

If you rule that default makes missing alert everyone in reality to your position (or some DM ruled subset), then there are four possibilites for Skulker (if you miss, do not alert):

Missing the creature aimed at stops them from being alerted, but everyone else is still alerted - this is ruling that you did not miss the other creatures
Missing the creature aimed at stops them from being alerted, as well as everyone else from being alerted - this is ruling that you did miss the other creatures
Hitting the creature aimed at alerts them, but does not alert others - this is ruling that you did miss the other creatures
Hitting the creature aimed at alerts them and everyone else - this is ruling that you did not miss the other creatures

[stoutstien]

I know it's just a game mechanic, but seeing this discussed at all really drives in how... completely nonsensible the mechanic is.

There is little that doesn't breakdown if you read too much into the exact wording or take it out of context.

[OvisCaedo]

There is little that doesn't breakdown if you read too much into the exact wording or take it out of context.

In this case, I just don't think there's any context in which "if you shoot at someone's back and miss they have no idea where you are, but if you hit them they instantly know your location" makes much sense. It's not a matter of wording, either; it's just a rather silly ability.

Obviously targets knowing where you are if you attack from stealth is a game balance thing so you can't just kill everything from hiding with impunity. And it's probably the right call for that reason! Skulker's exception just... doesn't make much sense, and I'm not sure what the ability is even supposed to imply in terms of the fantasy.

[stoutstien]

In this case, I just don't think there's any context in which "if you shoot at someone's back and miss they have no idea where you are, but if you hit them they instantly know your location" makes much sense. It's not a matter of wording, either; it's just a rather silly ability.

Obviously targets knowing where you are if you attack from stealth is a game balance thing so you can't just kill everything from hiding with impunity. And it's probably the right call for that reason! Skulker's exception just... doesn't make much sense, and I'm not sure what the ability is even supposed to imply in terms of the fantasy.

Honestly yea. that particular line is bad form because it fails to makes sense and it doesn't actually help the hero fulfill a certain troupe. I've personally reworked it but as written it's probably one of the reasons ppl sleep on it.

[Unoriginal]

Skulker's exception just... doesn't make much sense, and I'm not sure what the ability is even supposed to imply in terms of the fantasy.

It's the "arrow misses the character by an inch but they don't see where the archer is, indicating an ambush has started but neither the characters nor the audience can see who's doing the ambush yet" narrative convention/trope.

[OvisCaedo]

It's the "arrow misses the character by an inch but they don't see where the archer is, indicating an ambush has started but neither the characters nor the audience can see who's doing the ambush yet" narrative convention/trope.

That feels more like a general scenario than something a character is specifically good at doing. I also feel like that general trope happens plenty often with the ambush arrow actually hitting, just nonlethally or onto a mook.

As an ability for a character to have I guess it's being really good at only partially botching an ambush instead of messing it up completely? Which is actually sort of reasonable, talent to damage control bad/unlucky situations is valid. This specific example feels rather silly, but, eh. Game, I guess, and skulker's other two benefits are pretty damn good.

[Angelalex242]

Well...common sense says this...

You shoot goblin 1, he dies. Goblin 2 3 and 4 may not have seen where the shot came from, but they see the arrow in their dead pal, and which side it hit him from. They immediately look in that direction. Will they see you? Probably not, but they know there's an enemy out there and which direction the last shot came from just by the realities of arrows in a corpse.

A creative archer might get around the direction part by using volley shots so the arrow hits the goblin vertically in the head, and then they don't know which direction he was shot from. That's a heck of a trick shot though.

[Greywander]

Well...common sense says this...

You shoot goblin 1, he dies. Goblin 2 3 and 4 may not have seen where the shot came from, but they see the arrow in their dead pal, and which side it hit him from. They immediately look in that direction.
Do they, though? If they're not paying attention, they just hear their buddy give a strangled cry and fall over dead. They look over and see him crumpled on the ground with an arrow sticking out. Given a moment (Investigation check?) they might be able to deduce where he was standing and facing when he was shot, and thus which direction the shot came from, but most people won't have the presence of mind to do that in such a stressful situation, though maybe goblins would be more inclined to. Even if they're staring directly at the gobbo when he gets shot, it might surprise them so much that by the time it registers that they're under attack, they've forgotten which direction it came from.

The surprise rules could actually work well for modeling this. A surprised creature skips their first turn and can't take reactions until after their first turn. So we could say any goblin that hasn't had their turn yet is too surprised to react in time, while those whose turn has passed have overcome their surprise and might notice where the attack came from. I don't think that's RAW, but it sounds pretty good.

[Unoriginal]

Do they, though? If they're not paying attention, they just hear their buddy give a strangled cry and fall over dead. They look over and see him crumpled on the ground with an arrow sticking out. Given a moment (Investigation check?) they might be able to deduce where he was standing and facing when he was shot, and thus which direction the shot came from, but most people won't have the presence of mind to do that in such a stressful situation, though maybe goblins would be more inclined to. Even if they're staring directly at the gobbo when he gets shot, it might surprise them so much that by the time it registers that they're under attack, they've forgotten which direction it came from.

The surprise rules could actually work well for modeling this. A surprised creature skips their first turn and can't take reactions until after their first turn. So we could say any goblin that hasn't had their turn yet is too surprised to react in time, while those whose turn has passed have overcome their surprise and might notice where the attack came from. I don't think that's RAW, but it sounds pretty good.

According to the book, that situation would be:

1) Skulker killer declares an attack

2)Everyone rolls for initiative

3)Goblins are surprised,so can't act on the first turn

4)Skulker killer attacks Goblin A with perks because hidden. If the attack misses, Skulker killer remains hidden, so if they have a second attack, they can do it with the benefits of hidden.

5)If an attack hit, Skulker killer is revealed (at least to the target, possibly the others depending on your reading), and would need to use the Hide action again.

6) Second turn starts