D&D 5E Ranged attacks from behind a corner/an object

[Nailen]

I guess the basis of the arguement is people's interpretation of total cover. For me, you can't be in total cover and be able to know where enemy are to target them. For all you know, they have gone into cover themselves, or are advancing on your position...
I guess others can rule differently, and that doesn't matter to me because we don't play together.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using EN World mobile app

 

[robus]

I imagine what he means is that he's not charging any movement to the PC to lean out from behind the cover, shoot, and then lean back. The "lean, shoot, return to total cover" is all a part of the Attack action the PC is taking (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

That's why it's a 3). It's not "step out to shoot but now you have no cover" nor "lean out to shoot but now you only have 3/4 cover".

Personally, I rule the same way. PCs can hide behind stuff, pop up and shoot, then duck back down behind the cover again.

I think if you're attempting to assess the current state of the battlefield, aim and shoot all in one go then you can attack but it will be at disadvantage. It's a wild shot.

 

[jaelis]

I imagine what he means is that he's not charging any movement to the PC to lean out from behind the cover, shoot, and then lean back. The "lean, shoot, return to total cover" is all a part of the Attack action the PC is taking (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

OK but that is still saying you break cover during the attack, not that you are actually attacking through cover.

Whether breaking cover like that should expose your position is a different question.

 

[cooperjer]

Thanks for your responses! I figured out that there were two positions so far:

Let's say, I am playing a rogue that hides behind a corner. He gets Sneak Attack, because of the fact that he has the hidden condition that grants him Advantage (Advantage is one of the requirements for a Sneak Attack). The Rogue is a master of hiding, so he attacks and then uses his Bonus Action to hide again with his Cunning Action. He repeats that for several rounds.

So, I know there are a lot of people that say "NO! You can't hide twice behind the same place!". But I assume three things:

• a) If there is a place to hide only the dice decides whether or not a creature detects the rogue (no matter how often).
• b) The creature might know from where the attack/arrow/bolt came from, but it does not see the attacker. It doesn't see the Rogue reloading or aiming and in case of an object (e.g. a big barrel) it doesn't even know, if the Rogue is going to pop out from the left or right side. So it's obviously harder to defend against the rogue's further attacks than it would normally be.
• c) The rogue (and only the rogue) can "shoot and hide" within one round. He is a master of hiding like other classes can cast or do other cool stuff. That said, there should be some "general openness" for rogue tactics, as it is one of his main features.

What do you think about that?

Kind regards
Peter

As was indicated in prior posts, if a creature can be seen then it cannot hide. Therefore, if the DM decides a creature can be seen or perceived in some other way through blind sense, tremor sense, or some monsters ability to detect all other creatures in a certain radius, then it cannot hide. I should add, that in my opinion, if a player describes the hiding process to be cautious of the vibrations it makes then I'll let the character hide from tremor sense. Once the DM is clear there is a possibility of hiding then the player can roll a Dex (Stealth) ability check which is compared to the passive perception of the monsters.

I agree with your point (b). I feel this is a significant way the rogue can benefit from the sneak attack feature. If the rogue character were not allowed to act in this way, then the player may not enjoy the game as much. Player and DM experience may vary. Other DMs may not allow play this way.

Your point (c) is not restricted to rogues. A few other characters may hide and attack on the same turn. In general, any class that can make an attack as a bonus action (Sorcerer) or can take a second action on the same turn can hide and attack in the same turn. In a sorcerer case, they can cast Improved Invisibility. On the following turn they can cast a spell as a bonus action using meta magic and then use their action to hide. In a similar sense, a cleric could cast Healing Word and then use their action to hide.

 

[Li Shenron]

1.) Is it possible to hide behind an object/corner and make a ranged attack while being hidden?
2.) Do I have to step out for that or can I shoot while staying behind that object (e.g. by sticking to a wall/object and just peep around the edge of it).

Notice: If the answer concerning the 2nd question is "step out", attacks while hidden would no longer be possible with a Ready Action, because this would require movement.

Preliminary notes:

- hiding is always subject to the DM, who determines if there are conditions that makes hiding possible (see general hiding rules in PHB). So if the DM says you can't, don't argue

- do not mix up cover and concealment in the same examples

1) Generally yes, but keep in mind that
(a) the DM can say the conditions are such you don'teven get a chance
(b) you need a successful Dex check to hide, moving behind the object doesn't mean you are automatically hidden, not even if you move behind a corner (you cannot probably be targeted thre, but you're not hidden for the purpose of getting advantage unless you win the check)
(c) getting out of cover can be ruled as "stop hiding" and lose advantage; actually moving out and approach (move close to) your target for a melee attack is specifically mentioned in PHB as normally losing the hidden condition UNLESS the DM says otherwise
(d) even if you are granted advantage, after attacking you are not hidden anymore. It takes an action (bonus action if you're a 2nd level Rogue) and another successful Dex check to hide again

2) If the object is less than total cover you don't need to step out. If it's total cover yes, you need to step out, or at least give up total cover for something less during the attack.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not really. If I'm completely concealed by an obstacle I have total cover. But if there's a clear path from the edge of the obstacle to your location, then you don't have total cover and can be targeted.

Line of Sight is the same in both directions, and total cover is pretty much a lack of line of sight. If there's a clear path from the obstacle edge to the target, to attack it you need to get into that clear path i.e. line of sight, and as soon as you do, the target has line of sight to you. That's if you play within the normal level of "simulation" covered by the core rules, where you don't need to specify which parts of a creature occupy each specific portion or square of its space; if you go beyond this level, you may have cases when a large creature (especially a long one) doesn't have LOS from his eyes to any part of you while you may have LOS from your eyes to a non-eyes part of it (e.g. the tail), but this is clearly beyond that normal level of detail of the core rules.

Partial cover (half or three-quarter) is different. That one indeed doesn't work the same in both directions (see examples in the DMG).

By the way, three-quarter cover is pretty much the rule meant to cover (sic) the case of someone leaning past the edge of a wall to shoot, which intuitively is quite on par (at least not better) than shooting from an arrow slit.

 

[Hriston]

How can you see the target if you are in total cover?
"A target with *total cover* can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by the object"

If you are 'completely concealed' from the monster, then you surely cannot see it...?

Yes, how do you explain this? If something completely blocks his access to you, then how do you have access to him?

Well first, total cover (as long as it's opaque) completely conceals you. It doesn't completely conceal others from you unless they also have total cover.

Cover is really only relevant with reference to a target, not an attacker.

Second, to explain this to you, I feel I need to use a level of abstraction with which you may not be comfortable. Think Picasso levels of abstraction. Now, imagine that as a medium or small creature you inhabit a 5 foot by 5 foot square and that any part of you may be in any part of that square at any time. You can see from any and all points along the sides of your square you want, and if you can shoot a projectile, you can shoot it from any single point of origin along any side of the square you want. Now imagine that this square you inhabit is completely concealed behind an obstruction, but that one side of it is aligned with the edge of the obstruction. For example, if the obstruction is a length of wall, one side of your square is aligned with the very end of the wall. By placing your imaginary eye at any point on that side of the square, you can see a target on the other side of the wall, and by shooting a projectile from any point on that side of the square, you can attack a target on the other side of the wall.

edit: Here's a diagram to help visualize.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well first, total cover (as long as it's opaque) completely conceals you. It doesn't completely conceal others from you unless they also have total cover.

Please don't take offense, but I don't think this satisfies basic geometry.

Do not mix vision with the concept of unobstructed path (which is what is required to make an attack). Despite the possibly confusing name line of sight actually refers to unobstructed path.

 

[Nailen]

It wouldn't take long to do a practical experiment with a friend and a wall.
I'm pretty sure that if you're behind the wall so they can't see you then you won't be able to see them. If you move to the edge of the wall so you can see along the edge of it, they will be able to see you.
Unless your walls work like those mirrors that allow you to see through from one direction..

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using EN World mobile app

 

[lkwpeter]

You missed my position:

3.) While hiding behind an obstacle you have total cover, but your target does not and can be targeted without you having to step out from behind the obstacle.

Yes, I did. Sorry for that. I added it to my post.

Well first, total cover (as long as it's opaque) completely conceals you. It doesn't completely conceal others from you unless they also have total cover.

Cover is really only relevant with reference to a target, not an attacker.

Second, to explain this to you, I feel I need to use a level of abstraction with which you may not be comfortable. Think Picasso levels of abstraction. Now, imagine that as a medium or small creature you inhabit a 5 foot by 5 foot square and that any part of you may be in any part of that square at any time. You can see from any and all points along the sides of your square you want, and if you can shoot a projectile, you can shoot it from any single point of origin along any side of the square you want. Now imagine that this square you inhabit is completely concealed behind an obstruction, but that one side of it is aligned with the edge of the obstruction. For example, if the obstruction is a length of wall, one side of your square is aligned with the very end of the wall. By placing your imaginary eye at any point on that side of the square, you can see a target on the other side of the wall, and by shooting a projectile from any point on that side of the square, you can attack a target on the other side of the wall.

edit: Here's a diagram to help visualize.

View attachment 91562

Nice description! Sound reasonable to me. The DMG 251 states exactly what you described:

To precisely determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and rrace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If at least one such line doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks visionsuch as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog-then there is line of sight.

To make it even clearer, you could draw the line from the bottom left edge of the attack to the botton left edge of the target. That would indisputably represent a straigh path.

But is it possible to hide behind 3/4 cover?

---

Edit: Book quotation.