D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[jayoungr]

I was startled to have a rules argument tonight with a group that I've been playing with since the start of 5E. For context, we were in the lair of Xipe, the oni, in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. Three of the party were in melee with the oni, while two others (human warlock and halfling rogue) were attacking at range. This room doesn't appear on the map and has no boxed text description; the only hint about its furnishings is in the list of treasure, which mentions an ornamental table.

The rogue kept missing her attacks, and since I've played a rogue in several other games, I suggested that she hide so as to get advantage on the shot. (Note, before anyone asks: Yes, I also mentioned the new Aim action from Tasha's, but that's not what caused the argument). The DM, backed up by her husband, insisted that it's impossible to hide during combat. They pointed to the section on page 177 of the PHB that says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" and said that since Xipe could see the rogue, that meant she couldn't hide.

I said rogues were intended to be able to hide during combat and that's what the use of cunning action to hide as a bonus action was designed for. But I was so caught off guard and so amazed at their position that I was reduced to the lamest possible argument--"Well, my other DMs have always let me do it." To which the answer was, of course, "Your other DMs are wrong."

So ... am I and the three other DMs that I've played rogues under just wrong about this?

Is it up for interpretation?

If I'm right, or if there's at least a case to be made that I'm right, what other rule can I point to that will convince this DM?

(To be clear, I'm not playing the rogue in this particular game, but it will end soon, and if this is going to be their way to play it, that could stop me from ever rolling a rogue at this table.)

Bonus extra question

I could see a case that there was nothing in the room suitable for the rogue to hide behind, although it seems like the living quarters of a Large creature should provide hiding opportunities for a Small PC. But the rogue is a halfling and the warlock, who was next to her, is a human. And Lightfoot halflings have the "Naturally Stealthy" ability, which says this: "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." So it seems to me that the halfling rogue should have been able to hide behind the human warlock even if there was nothing else suitable in the area. If you would allow a rogue to hide during combat, would you allow a halfling rogue who is attacking from range to hide behind a human?

 

[Zardnaar]

Way I do it if you're being observed you can't do it.

If you're a halfing you can hide behind someone but it's only good for the first shot.

It's hiding not greater invisibility or even normal invisibility.

Basically once you launch an attack the enemy knows you're there.

 

[overgeeked]

The key is sight. If they can see you, you can’t hide. If they can’t see you, you can. That’s what ducking behind pillars, crates, and other characters if you’re a halfling are for. If the room is bare, sure. If there’s anything to obstruct LOS, nope, you’re gone.

 

[jayoungr]

Basically once you launch an attack the enemy knows you're there.

You mean you think it's impossible to hide after you have attacked? Or do you mean you have to hide again after attacking?

 

[Charlaquin]

The Hide action is literally listed under the header “Actions in Combat,” so yes, it is intended that characters be able to hide in combat. That said, it is also true that you can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and what exactly that means is up to DM interpretation. But I think any reasonable DM would say that total cover and heavy obscurement both count at the very least. Now, it is possible that the terrain in your example just didn’t provide any means by which to prevent the rogue from being seen clearly. But it sounds like the environment may not have been described clearly enough to make that determination, which in my opinion is on the DM, even if the module was vague in its description of the room. Finally, if the rogue was a lightfoot halfling, they should have been able to hide behind their Medium allies by RAW. But I know a lot of DMs don’t allow that, so it’s something you should always ask your DM about if you’re considering playing a lightfoot halfling. Same goes for wood elf, to a lesser extent.

 

[iserith]

I was startled to have a rules argument tonight with a group that I've been playing with since the start of 5E. For context, we were in the lair of Xipe, the oni, in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. Three of the party were in melee with the oni, while two others (human warlock and halfling rogue) were attacking at range. This room doesn't appear on the map and has no boxed text description; the only hint about its furnishings is in the list of treasure, which mentions an ornamental table.

The rogue kept missing her attacks, and since I've played a rogue in several other games, I suggested that she hide so as to get advantage on the shot. (Note, before anyone asks: Yes, I also mentioned the new Aim action from Tasha's, but that's not what caused the argument). The DM, backed up by her husband, insisted that it's impossible to hide during combat. They pointed to the section on page 177 of the PHB that says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly" and said that since Xipe could see the rogue, that meant she couldn't hide.

I said rogues were intended to be able to hide during combat and that's what the use of cunning action to hide as a bonus action was designed for. But I was so caught off guard and so amazed at their position that I was reduced to the lamest possible argument--"Well, my other DMs have always let me do it." To which the answer was, of course, "Your other DMs are wrong."

So ... am I and the three other DMs that I've played rogues under just wrong about this?

Is it up for interpretation?

If I'm right, or if there's at least a case to be made that I'm right, what other rule can I point to that will convince this DM?

(To be clear, I'm not playing the rogue in this particular game, but it will end soon, and if this is going to be their way to play it, that could stop me from ever rolling a rogue at this table.)

Bonus extra question

I could see a case that there was nothing in the room suitable for the rogue to hide behind, although it seems like the living quarters of a Large creature should provide hiding opportunities for a Small PC. But the rogue is a halfling and the warlock, who was next to her, is a human. And Lightfoot halflings have the "Naturally Stealthy" ability, which says this: "You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." So it seems to me that the halfling rogue should have been able to hide behind the human warlock even if there was nothing else suitable in the area. If you would allow a rogue to hide during combat, would you allow a halfling rogue who is attacking from range to hide behind a human?

If the rogue can be seen clearly or heard, the rogue cannot be hidden. Whether the environment has elements which allows the rogue to try to hide is entirely up to the DM. It's not a rule that "you can't hide in combat," but circumstances may be such that you can't hide in a given environment. As for the bonus question, a halfling rogue could hide behind a human as long as the rogue is not heard.

 

[jayoungr]

If the rogue can be seen clearly or heard, the rogue cannot be hidden.

But can the rogue, as a bonus action during combat, move to a place where she cannot be seen clearly and then attempt to hide?

As for the bonus question, a halfling rogue could hide behind a human as long as the rogue is not heard.

How would you adjudicate whether the rogue was heard or not?

 

[billd91]

Hiding in combat is definitely a thing or there wouldn’t be a Hide action in the first place. But, yeah, you have to have suitable places to hide that give you appropriate concealment or suitably distract the observer. Keep in mind that the appropriate concealment has to be from the perspective of the observer. A lightfoot halfling has to be behind their larger buddy with respect to the opponent to try to hide from them, so always think of the suitability of the concealment.

 

[billd91]

How would you adjudicate whether the rogue was heard or not?

Successful stealth check will decide that - presuming, of course, the rogue isn’t doing something that precludes trying to be stealthy like singing a jaunty, fighting tune or talking.

 

[iserith]

But can the rogue, as a bonus action during combat, move to a place where she cannot be seen clearly and then attempt to hide?

If there is such a place, yes.

How would you adjudicate whether the rogue was heard or not?

As long as the rogue isn't talking, singing, or whatever, then the Dexterity (Stealth) check will determine the outcome. If they are talking, singing, or otherwise making noise, their attempt to hide fails (no roll).