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

[Charlaquin]

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

Obviously if you move out of cover you are no longer hidden (unless the DM rules your target is too distracted to notice you), because you are moving to a position from which you can be seen clearly. Just eat the -2 or -5 penalty for the cover and count on the advantage you get for being unseen to make up for it.

 

[NotAYakk]

The thing is, the only support I see for this in the rules is the statement that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate to hide. And, yes, the DM can certainly decide to rule this way. But I don’t think it should be listed as a general rule for stealth, because it isn’t in the general rules for stealth. It’s a call a DM may or may not decide to make. Furthermore, not allowing rogues to do this lowers their average damage output below the design expectation, which is exactly why they put Steady Aim in Tasha’s.

You have to be unseen to get that advantage, and repeatedly making an attack from the exact same spot every few seconds (revealing where you are), it isn't plausible you remain unseen.

When behind the pillar, you are hidden. When you repeatedly pop out at the same spot, your telegraphed actions reveal yourself before you shoot.

At the end of an attack, you do lose hidden; but DMs are free to adjudicate when you lose hidden otherwise. And in this case, you lose hidden before you attack if you telegraph where you are going to attack from.

Yes, this means that a solo rogue, pinned down behind a pillar, can't keep on hiding then shooting with sneak attack. In a reasonable battlefield, there will be other options.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Given that this is exactly the thing I’m saying causes these problems, I’m not sure what your point is.

My point is that it isn't a significant issue, and what little issue does genuinely exist is not a system issue. At most, they could be more clear in advising the DM, but the rogue is just a class that relies a bit on the DM not trying to nerf stealth for it's combat efficacy, and players need to be aware of that.

 

[Charlaquin]

The trick is that "I pop out from the same location" to me becomes "the monster expects you to pop out there, is watching right there, and sees you before you attack".

On the other hand, if you are popping out at different spots, you can get the attack off before the monster can spot you.

Of course, a pillar has two sides you can “pop out from,” and you can also shoot from eye level or from a crouched position (or any height in-between). a Halfling hiding behind their Medium ally can likewise pop out from either side, or shoot between the ally’s legs, or arc a shot over their head. So, popping out from different spots doesn’t necessarily require moving to a new source of cover.

It’s hard to defend against an attack when you don’t know exactly when it’s coming or from what angle, even if you know where the attacker is roughly. Anyone who has played first person shooters at even a moderate level of competition has experienced this, and probably used it to their advantage at times.

 

[jayoungr]

You have to be unseen to get that advantage, and repeatedly making an attack from the exact same spot every few seconds (revealing where you are), it isn't plausible you remain unseen.

That's what the stealth check is for. It means the target isn't sure whether you're still there or have moved somewhere else on the battlefield.

 

[Charlaquin]

You have to be unseen to get that advantage, and repeatedly making an attack from the exact same spot every few seconds (revealing where you are), it isn't plausible you remain unseen.

When behind the pillar, you are hidden. When you repeatedly pop out at the same spot, your telegraphed actions reveal yourself before you shoot.

You can rule that way, but the general rules for hiding don’t say this is the case, they rely entirely on the DM deciding it isn’t appropriate to hide in this circumstance. Which is a valid thing to decide, but no more valid than deciding it is appropriate to hide in that circumstance, as no rule suggests otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

My point is that it isn't a significant issue, and what little issue does genuinely exist is not a system issue. At most, they could be more clear in advising the DM, but the rogue is just a class that relies a bit on the DM not trying to nerf stealth for it's combat efficacy, and players need to be aware of that.

It seems a pretty common issue to me that players are dissatisfied with the way their DMs rule on stealth. YMMV.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It seems a pretty common issue to me that players are dissatisfied with the way their DMs rule on stealth. YMMV.

Stealth in general perhaps, but I rarely see rogues brought up in a negative light.

Anyway, an errata on Stealth to make it clearer how it's meant to work would be cool, regardless.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

That's what the stealth check is for. It means the target isn't sure whether you're still there or have moved somewhere else on the battlefield.

That moves along to the rules for skill checks though. If something is impossible, you automatically fail. The most extreme example being trying to "hide" while crouching in front of someone, Skyrim style, but other factors could also make hiding an impossible check, depending on the situation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That moves along to the rules for skill checks though. If something is impossible, you automatically fail. The most extreme example being trying to "hide" while crouching in front of someone, Skyrim style, but other factors could also make hiding an impossible check, depending on the situation.

Right, but no one has ever said that you should be able to hide no matter what, so this isn't the other side of the discussed coin. We aren't talking about hiding in a bare room with bright light -- no one is arguing you can just hide.