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

[Lyxen]

So when you say "People looking for a single, clear ruling like "you can hide" in combat or you "cannot hide in combat" are going to be disappointed." the rules says the former, and not the latter. But they also say DM decides.

So you can hide in combat when eligible, unless the DM says otherwise would be the best way to summarise it.

OK, I think we agree at this stage. The rules clearly make allowance for hiding in combat, so there are no RAW that prevent hiding in combat as a general overarching principle. My messages were mostly centered around the fact that (and, as pointed out by the Dev themselves, even more in the stealth area) it's all about the DM's decision and we agree on this as well.

I think I could almost make a point that being in combat or not does not make a difference as to whether you can hide or not. One could argue that about alertness, but nothing prevents someone from being extremely alert if not technically in combat for game purposes. And the same, people can be distracted both in and out of combat. What do you think ?

 

[Lyxen]

A sensible set of simple hiding rules:

These are not bad, but as you will see below, they are not complete and the circumstances can actually invalidate them...

1. You can take the hide action (or bonus) basically whenever, but it only works on foes you have total cover/concealment from.

Unfortunately no. First, cover has no bearing on stealth. A Wall of Force gives you total cover bur is totally transparent and will not allow you to hide behind. Second, "total" is not needed, the rules are purposefully vague here: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly", not "at all".

2. If you attack while hidden, or when totally concealed and you can see your target*, you have advantage on that attack roll.

The rule is more precise and actually simpler: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it."

3. "Fool me twice": If you try to hide in the same spot as you just attacked from, and attack from there again, you do not get advantage on the attack roll. You can duck behind a door, hide, then attack once.

Actually this is nowhere in the rules. It's totally up to the DM what happens if you try to hide in the same spot where you just attacked from, and depending on the circumstances, as a DM, I might make different rulings.

4. You can charge from hiding against an engaged or similarly distracted foe. Make a stealth check with disadvantage against their passive perception to keep advantage on the attack. "Fool me twice" applies; switch up your tricks.

Again, this is nowhere in the rules, which are fairly clear and have nothing to do with "charge", which is actually not a general game term. The only thing that is mentioned, AFAIK, is " if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." You might have a houserule to that effect, but I would not apply it in my game.

*: Two people fighting in complete darkness have disadvantage, it doesn't cancel out like in RAW.

This is completely up to you but for me there are more drawbacks to applying this than applying just the RAW.

 

[Plaguescarred]

OK, I think we agree at this stage. The rules clearly make allowance for hiding in combat, so there are no RAW that prevent hiding in combat as a general overarching principle. My messages were mostly centered around the fact that (and, as pointed out by the Dev themselves, even more in the stealth area) it's all about the DM's decision and we agree on this as well.

I think I could almost make a point that being in combat or not does not make a difference as to whether you can hide or not. One could argue that about alertness, but nothing prevents someone from being extremely alert if not technically in combat for game purposes. And the same, people can be distracted both in and out of combat. What do you think ?

I agree with you

 

[Oofta]

Damn right.
Hide is one of the combat actions available in the PHB. People just like to make things unnecessarily complicated.

The problem is not hiding if you are not clearly seen, it's whether you can attack while remaining hidden.

 

[Nefermandias]

The problem is not hiding if you are not clearly seen, it's whether you can attack while remaining hidden.

You can't. Skulker says you remain hidden if you miss a ranged attack. That's the only exception.

 

[billd91]

The problem is not hiding if you are not clearly seen, it's whether you can attack while remaining hidden.

You can't attack and THEN remain hidden, barring missing with the Skulker feat. But the rules pretty much presume you can attack from a hidden position and benefit from the fact that you were hidden. In other words, peeking out to launch an attack doesn't negate you getting advantage for being an unseen attacker for that attack. It's just that in the aftermath of that attack, you're revealed.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

You can't attack and THEN remain hidden, barring missing with the Skulker feat. But the rules pretty much presume you can attack from a hidden position and benefit from the fact that you were hidden. In other words, peeking out to launch an attack doesn't negate you getting advantage for being an unseen attacker for that attack. It's just that in the aftermath of that attack, you're revealed.

Right, and in an ambush scenario that makes total sense, no issue. This thread seems to be about the various ways to rule hide-attack-hide-attack-hide-attack within a single combat.

 

[Oofta]

You can't attack and THEN remain hidden, barring missing with the Skulker feat. But the rules pretty much presume you can attack from a hidden position and benefit from the fact that you were hidden. In other words, peeking out to launch an attack doesn't negate you getting advantage for being an unseen attacker for that attack. It's just that in the aftermath of that attack, you're revealed.

I don't see that assumption. In fact I see the opposite, that it's up to the DM to decide if the target is distracted enough to not notice in the hiding section of the rules.

After the attack they are revealed barring things like skulker.

But this isn't 4E where there were explicit rules like "you can move 15 feet closer while remaining hidden". If your DM is okay with someone being surprised they're being attacked the fifth time your rogue pops out from the exact same position more power to you. It's perfectly legit to run it that way.

But there is nothing that says once you move out of cover to attack that you remain hidden.

 

[Lyxen]

You can't attack and THEN remain hidden, barring missing with the Skulker feat. But the rules pretty much presume you can attack from a hidden position and benefit from the fact that you were hidden. In other words, peeking out to launch an attack doesn't negate you getting advantage for being an unseen attacker for that attack. It's just that in the aftermath of that attack, you're revealed.

On this, the rules are quite clear and unambiguous, in particular as to when you stop being hidden:

• General: 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.
• General: If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
• Skulker: When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't see that assumption. In fact I see the opposite, that it's up to the DM to decide if the target is distracted enough to not notice in the hiding section of the rules.

After the attack they are revealed barring things like skulker.

I think the confusion between the points of view comes about the type of attack. If it's ranged, or close melee (where you can attack without needing to come out in the open), it's exactly as you describe, it's just that as far as I know there is no way, starting hidden, to approach a target in the open and benefit from being hidden to attack.

But this isn't 4E where there were explicit rules like "you can move 15 feet closer while remaining hidden". If your DM is okay with someone being surprised they're being attacked the fifth time your rogue pops out from the exact same position more power to you. It's perfectly legit to run it that way.

Indeed it is, I don't run it that way because I like my games to feel a bit more immersive and logical than Skyrim, but the rules do not contradict this.

But there is nothing that says once you move out of cover to attack that you remain hidden.

It's not a question of cover (in the technical 5e sense), but the rules are clear that it's not that way in general, but exceptions might be made depending on the circumstances: "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."