Rogues... Melee... Cunning Action... Hide...

[Tawmis]

Question...

How would you rule this?
Rogue strikes an enemy (let's say an orc) with melee daggers, then on their bonus action uses cunning action to Hide (and rolls a Stealth).
Now say they roll a 19 on their Stealth roll.
How do you have the orc potentially roll to spot the Rogue?
Are they doing a Wisdom (Perception) check and need to exceed the 19?
Is it at Advantage, since the Rogue didn't disengage (and is still technically within the threat zone)?
Rules state, that someone can't hide if the enemy sees them - but in what case then, would cunning action hide be beneficial?
Only from a distance type attack? Where they might be able to hide behind shrubbery?

[JNAProductions]

Unless the Rogue is unseen by the orc, they cannot hide.

[NontheistCleric]

The rogue cannot hide right in plain sight of the orc, no. As you say, they might do it behind shrubbery after a distance attack, or if they wanted to risk an opportunity attack or had some ability to avoid opportunity attacks (like the Mobile feat or the Swashbuckler’s feature), they could move away after the attack and hide behind something.

In such a case the orc would have to roll to beat the Stealth with their Perception to discern the rogue’s location (although if the rogue was behind something, the orc might still not be able to attack them). However, the orc might also simply be able to move into a position where the rogue was no longer hidden from them—for example, moving around the shrubbery so the rogue is not obscured by it.

The rogue could also hide if they were invisible. Invisibility alone doesn’t take away the enemy’s ability to pinpoint you (it does always provide advantage on your attacks and disadvantage on the enemy’s if they can’t see through it), but it does provide obscurement which can be used to hide. The hiding would cause them to lose track of you on a failed Perception vs. Stealth roll.

[Skrum]

While the rules on hiding and sight aren't great, they make it pretty clear that to even *attempt* to hide, you need to be unseen in some way. Break line of sight, be invisible, etc. This isn't WoW where the rogue can just crouch down and disappear.

It might help to think of it this way - taking the hide action is NOT about concealing yourself. It's more about being quiet once you're already concealed.

An invisible creature that's making no attempt to be quiet is not hidden, and every creature (within a reasonable distance as determined by the DM) knows that they are there and what square they are occupying. They can be targeted by attacks, which would have disadvantage. This state remains true even if the invisible creature is moving around; everyone in the combat knows where that creature is, down to the square they are occupying.

An invisible creature that takes the hide action (which they can take because they are invisible, i.e. not in line of sight) is then hidden - now, creatures don't know where they are. The most common response is to make perception checks opposed by the hidden creature's stealth check. This check could be a free action, or even take an action to perform (up to circumstance and DM). Note that the invisible and hidden creature gets no particular bonus to their roll - if they've got a +1 stealth, and the person looking for them has a +8 perception, there's a high chance the looker is going to succeed and call it out to their friends. Casting invisibility on the plate-wearing paladin is worth very very little as far as sneaking goes.

[Arkhios]

Also good to know is that by default there are no facing rules in effect in (5th ed.) D&D, apart from a houserule (or possibly an optional rule, though I can't remember if one exists or not).

This goes both ways. On one hand, you can attack at whichever direction you want to as long as you're otherwise capable, without first turning to face the direction. On the other hand, so can the enemies.

Standing next to an orc, with nothing to hide behind or within, it's impossible to Hide, regardless of the action being used. Bonus Action to hide is useful when you have already used your Action on your turn, obviously. You'd just need to escape from the vicinity of your target risking or somehow avoiding the opportunity attack and find a place to Hide.

As for the "spot" check, in my honest opinion, if a creature isn't actively looking for you, your stealth check should be enough alone, using the creature's Passive Perception as the DC you need to meet or exceed. I would probably have it made with disadvantage if you're still standing next to the creature, but otherwise able to Hide right then and there.

[Witty Username]

How dark is it?
were you attacking from hiding?
Is there anything that can block vision, even at close distance?

In short, what is allowing you to hide?

I would allow hiding in melee if there is a good argument that the rogue is not in plain sight (I miss that feature). Think less about game mechanics (there aren't any) and more about the physical space and situation.

[Derges]

The answer has been pretty well covered. The rogue needs a way to be concealed before hiding is a valid choice.

in addition, there are some races that might allow it:

Wood elves can hide "when they are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena"

Halflings can share a space with a medium creature and also hide when obscured by a medium creature. An ally adjacent to the orc could be moved to without provoking and then used for concealment.

[stoutstien]

Skulker goes a long way here.

[da newt]

"An invisible creature that's making no attempt to be quiet is not hidden, and every creature (within a reasonable distance as determined by the DM) knows that they are there and what square they are occupying. They can be targeted by attacks, which would have disadvantage. This state remains true even if the invisible creature is moving around; everyone in the combat knows where that creature is, down to the square they are occupying."

The above is one DM's ruling (a fairly common one) - but there is no RAW that supports this as the one correct ruling. Barring extraordinary circumstances (maybe a fight on an untouched field of snow) in the heat of battle it is nearly impossible to track / locate an invisible creature by hearing and smell alone. IMO, 'you hear movement to your left' is reasonable, 'you hear breathing 25' away from you to the NNE' is fantasy BS.


As others have said, you need to be unseen to attempt to hide - breaking line of sight is the most common way (behind cover, around a corner, in the fog, beyond their dark vision, etc). It gets more vague when the folks you are hiding from are using senses other than sight (blind sense, tremor sense, etc), but NO you can't hide in a well lit room with no furniture in it.

[Zhorn]

Barring extraordinary circumstances (maybe a fight on an untouched field of snow) in the heat of battle it is nearly impossible to track / locate an invisible creature by hearing and smell alone. IMO, 'you hear movement to your left' is reasonable, 'you hear breathing 25' away from you to the NNE' is fantasy BS.

This is one of the things I've been enjoying about running my current game in Foundry VTT and able to have tokens on the field AND be unseen per player screen with the right stealth/invisible conditions (modules: Stealthy and Vision 5e)

I've got Search checks (using perception or investigation) apply an effect on the character that gives them an imprecise detection range (knows location, doesn't negate unseen disadvantage). The roll contests the hidden creature's stealth check, but if the token is invisible, it within a range of [x] feet (x = passive value of the search check used) there's a little marker on the map where the invisible token is.
Creature's with a keen sense (hearing, smell) have a passive +bonus to that range, their total WIS Value (not modifier) +5 (representing the advantage)
So for example if you're invisible around an owlbear; if you get within 17 feet of it (12 WIS + 5), it'll know you're there. And if it were actively trying to find you, it'll know where you are within 30 feet of it (+ 13 passive perception).

Other's using those modules tend to just use a default 30 ft hearing range that's always on, but I've not been fond of that. It makes it so everyone functionally has a sonar sense and removes all value of the search actions or spells like see invisibility (baring disadvantage roll for unseen target).
"I sneak invisibly into the room"
"the guards immediately detect you with their sonar sense"
compare
"I sneak invisibly into the room"
"the guards do not detect you, but you can see the patrol down the hall has a dog. If it gets too close to you its keen smell will alert it to your position and it's barking will prompt the guards to take a search action"
I find the second more satisfying for mechanical incorporation. Plus it encourages having a guard dog.
It encourages use of features to navigate around hidden/invisible, but even without them you have the option of attempting to track/find targets using a search action (great for legendary creatures that have a detect action), and work as a team to pin them down.

[schm0]

Question...

How do you have the orc potentially roll to spot the Rogue?


Use the orc's passive Perception, unless the orc takes the Search action, in which case they get to roll.


Are they doing a Wisdom (Perception) check and need to exceed the 19?

Yes. See above.


Is it at Advantage, since the Rogue didn't disengage (and is still technically within the threat zone)?

No. Disengaging is irrelevant to perceiving another creature.


Rules state, that someone can't hide if the enemy sees them - but in what case then, would cunning action hide be beneficial?

In the bare bones scenario you described, it isn't. You can't hide unless you are unseen in some way, either through obscurement or invisibility.


Only from a distance type attack? Where they might be able to hide behind shrubbery?

Depends on the terrain or interior space. You should know, or at least be able to rule, where a plausible area to hide might be. (The PC should know this information as well, as long as they can perceive a potential area to hide.)

[LibraryOgre]

Unless the thief has another ability, a melee attack against someone means that they are within sight, and cannot hide. Now, there's an exception if the thief has surprise and initiative... Sneak Attack, Disengage, Move, then start their next turn with Hide (perhaps Sneak attack, move, hide)

[LudicSavant]

Question...

How would you rule this?
Rogue strikes an enemy (let's say an orc) with melee daggers, then on their bonus action uses cunning action to Hide (and rolls a Stealth).
Now say they roll a 19 on their Stealth roll.
How do you have the orc potentially roll to spot the Rogue?
Are they doing a Wisdom (Perception) check and need to exceed the 19?
Is it at Advantage, since the Rogue didn't disengage (and is still technically within the threat zone)?
Rules state, that someone can't hide if the enemy sees them - but in what case then, would cunning action hide be beneficial?
Only from a distance type attack? Where they might be able to hide behind shrubbery?

Stealth automatically fails if you're in plain sight.

[Unoriginal]

Wood elves can hide "when they are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena"

For years I had this idea of a boss being a Wood Elf Ronin-type figure, who would fight using falling autumn leaves or cherry blossoms to hide, attack once Iajutsu-style, then disappear again.

I recently managed to use that encounter, and it was as awesome as I hoped it'd be.

[tKUUNK]

For years I had this idea of a boss being a Wood Elf Ronin-type figure, who would fight using falling autumn leaves or cherry blossoms to hide, attack once Iajutsu-style, then disappear again.

I recently managed to use that encounter, and it was as awesome as I hoped it'd be.

epic idea for a boss fight. if I play a wood elf again this makes me consider a rogue dip. Or straight rogue. You make me think I was "doing wood elf wrong" before!!!

[Unoriginal]

epic idea for a boss fight. if I play a wood elf again this makes me consider a rogue dip. Or straight rogue. You make me think I was "doing wood elf wrong" before!!!

Thank you, it is a huge compliment.


However, keep in mind that this boss fight had the Wood Elf ronin deliberately pick the place to get this advantage, something an adventurer likely won't get the luxury to do most of the time. Not to mention the differences between PC and NPC builds.

Also keep in mind that being a boss, she did die doing that.

Having my players terrified of the amount of damages she could do in-between disappearances was nice, though, but so was how she died: she eventually failed a DEX (Stealth) check against high-Passive Perception PCs and got finished by the prisoners she was guarding.

[tieren]

Note there are ways to hide in melee so the cunning action ability is not useless, you just need to interfere with vision. Fighting in a fog cloud or magical darkness for example or if the orc is blinded for some reason.

[Derges]

For years I had this idea of a boss being a Wood Elf Ronin-type figure, who would fight using falling autumn leaves or cherry blossoms to hide, attack once Iajutsu-style, then disappear again.

I recently managed to use that encounter, and it was as awesome as I hoped it'd be.

That's really cool.

My head goes the other way and wonders what level of foliage one needs to be lightly obscured and if one could carry around one or more branches for that purpose.*
Furthermore, what is a "natural phenomena"? In modern science natural phenomena are anything not supernatural (ie everything). Is there a better definition for D&D?



*I'm well aware that trying this as a player results in falling rocks 99% of the time.

[da newt]

IMO you need enough foliage to fill 2x the area you occupy at a minimum otherwise there is no question about your location.

I believe for this purpose the intent was 'stuff not made by people' = natural phenomena, so weather and plants and insect swarms and stuff like that only, (but RAW it does open up the possibility of hiding anywhere there are dim light conditions if your foe doesn't have darkvision, and in areas of darkness if they do - they provide the required lightly obscured and should meet the natural phenomena requirement too).

[Unoriginal]

IMO you need enough foliage to fill 2x the area you occupy at a minimum otherwise there is no question about your location.

I mean, fair for normal concealment, but Wood Elves can hide between (or behind) raindrops.

[Derges]

IMO you need enough foliage to fill 2x the area you occupy at a minimum otherwise there is no question about your location.

While that might be a reasonable ruling to the shenanigans overall, the specific question is what counts as lightly obscured.

The rules seem pretty vague:

In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

it feels a bit circular but is the answer "Whatever the DM decides is enough to impose disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight"?

[da newt]

I mean, fair for normal concealment, but Wood Elves can hide between (or behind) raindrops.

Absolutely, but they should not be able to hide in a 5x5x5' area of rain - they should require a larger area of rain so that there is some question as to where they are (not only one possible location) - my point is not how dense the cover is, it is how large the area of cover is.

[Derges]

Absolutely, but they should not be able to hide in a 5x5x5' area of rain - they should require a larger area of rain so that there is some question as to where they are (not only one possible location) - my point is not how dense the cover is, it is how large the area of cover is.

I don't think that is supported by the text though. It's logical but also rules out hiding behind other bits of terrain (trees, pillars, barrels ect) or combatants (halflings can hide behind medium creatures as mentioned above).

[Unoriginal]

Absolutely, but they should not be able to hide in a 5x5x5' area of rain - they should require a larger area of rain so that there is some question as to where they are (not only one possible location) - my point is not how dense the cover is, it is how large the area of cover is.


I don't think that is supported by the text though. It's logical but also rules out hiding behind other bits of terrain (trees, pillars, barrels ect) or combatants (halflings can hide behind medium creatures as mentioned above).

You can hide in a 5x5x5 area, meaning you are unseen and unheard, but then the opponent can just pinpoint the area you're in and target that.

So you gain some perks (namely, all the one from being unseen), but not all the perks you usually get from hiding since they still know where you are.


Funnily enough, hiding and staying at the same place can be a very effecting tactic when you *do* have the room to go elsewhere.

The Ronin boss I mentioned earlier did that, at one point. Went into hiding, but staying where she was, in melee range of one of the PCs.

PC assumed she had moved away and got Attack of Opportunity'd when they moved to go help the rest of the group.

[da newt]

Agree - RAW you can hide as long as there is some concealment and 5x5x5 is plenty, but I believe there SHOULD be a requirement that the area/thing you hide behind or in is bigger than the space you occupy otherwise there is no question where you are (even if you are unseen) which is why I started w/ IMO.