[5e] Hiding in combat

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Necrozius

Necrozius

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
10,605
So this may or might not be a dilemma at all, but since it creates much debate online, I thought I'd spark a discussion here, my favourite forum.

In Adventures in Middle Earth (and possibly in regular ol' 5e too), a halfling can hide behind a medium-sized target.

Thanks to the Cunning Action ability, they can make an additional action (such as hide) every round. This means that a Halfling Rogue could hide behind a medium sized ally in the heat of combat, jump out and get a Sneak Attack on a foe, and then hide again, making themselves only a target if their foes can first spot them with an opposed Intelligence (Perception) check vs. the Rogues Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Now the PC in my campaign has Expertise in Stealth and maxed out Dexterity. This means that they have something like +10 to Stealth checks. Which means that they're pretty much untouchable in combat and constantly dish out an extra 3-4d6 damage each turn.

While I'm of the mind of being a fan of the characters and letting them do awesome shit all the time... I feel like this is... WRONG somehow.

I feel guilt in thinking that this setup is off: numerous discussions on this matter flat out tell GMs to back off and let the player game the system like that. But I don't like it and I can't seem to let go.

How to handle this in a decent way?
 
Just found a discussion on stack exchange (can-the-rogue-repeatedly-hide-in-combat-to-sneak-attack-the-same-enemy). What do folks think of this answer?
No, this doesn't work in melee.
At least not the important second half.

  1. Yes, they can duck behind the corner and hide. All they need to do to be allowed to hide is break line of sight.
  2. No, they can't just pop back out and sneak attack. To sneak attack, they need advantage, and to get that from being unseen they have to still be unseen when they attack (PHB, p. 195):

    When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
    Click to expand...

    Unfortunately for the rogue, as soon as they pop out in front of an attacker that's already aware of their presence, they are immediately seen and no longer count as unseen when they attack (PHB, p. 177):

    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.
    Click to expand...
Sneak attack only works if they sneak up on an enemy who doesn't know they're there. Popping out of hiding isn't sneaky, unless the enemy is surprised — and they can't surprise an enemy that is “aware of danger”. When they duck behind a corner in combat, the enemy is aware of danger and watching all around, and is impossible to sneak up on (without unusual circumstances), because that enemy is the opposite of surprised — they are actively on guard.

Does it work at range?
Not easily. It can work as long as they avoid being spotted, but not being spotted is the hard part: since the attacker's location is automatically given away and after that it's easy to see them, special precautions are required to prevent being seen despite the target knowing exactly where they are.

To do that at range you're working with the same rules — they need to be unseen, they need to stayunseen until after they make the attack, and the target needs to fail to locate them after being attacked. It's that last part that makes this difficult — by an explicit rule, attacking reveals a character's location (PHB, p. 195):

If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

So to make this work at range, they need to arrange fictional circumstances somehow to defeat that. The usual way to do this with ranged attacks is to

  1. attack while unseen (usually in cover1), revealing their location,
  2. either have attacked while in cover, or move to break line of sight or into cover,
  3. hide now that they're somewhere that allows a Stealth check,
  4. move to a new location without that movement being seen, to make their location unknown again,
  5. then, attack from their new location, unseen.
This convoluted process is often necessary because, at step (1) the ranged attacker has already revealed their location, and all it takes is a successful Perception check to see them (assuming the attacker is not blindingly obvious once the enemy knows where to look) for the advantage from being unseen to be removed. Steps (2)–(5) establish a new location that has not already been revealed, allowing the next attack to be made unseen.

(However, this process can be largely skipped if the hiding spot is so good that Perception checks to see the attacker are likely to fail. To be a good sniper, make a good sniper nest! And hope you're not seen, and have an escape route planned.)

But popping out from hiding in a single location before attacking? No, that won't grant advantage, because just like in the melee situation, the attacker is immediately seen once they move out from their hiding spot to line up the next shot.

Ugh, this is too hard!
Well then, do it the simple way: an enemy that has an ally of the rogue's adjacent to it can also be Sneak Attacked. That allows Sneak Attack every round with no need to fiddle with movement or hiding or seen/unseen variables. Just flank and shiv.
Click to expand...
 
Seems like you just need another foe to go behind the person the hobbit is hiding behind, which would take away his hiding place.
Also, seems reasonable to expect a bunch of enemies to gang up on the guy that's hiding the hobbit, in a effort to get to the hobbit. Eventually, that guy's going to get fed up being a hobbit shield.
 
Good point.

However, in the specific context of my player group, the hobbit usually hides behind the party's tank. This is a Dwarf Fighter with the defensive style and heaps of armor. His AC is something like 21. Almost impossible to hit. And even if a foe manages to hit the Hobbit, it's usually at a Disadvantage (the Dwarf can protect 1 ally each round).

Keep in mind that I'm the kind of GM who feels BAD when I score a critical against a PC (don't want the players to be too upset). I'm a huge softie and I'm getting annoyed at the tactics being used here.
 
I asked a buddy of mine who is a shameless min-maxer. His reply was: "grenades and area-of-attacks; they can't hide from explosions". Nice idea, but the Rogue can escape those kinds of attacks rather easily with an insanely high Dex saving throw.

I get that halfling rogues are nimble glass cannons... but he's essentially an invisible glass cannon that is untouchable.

Similarly, in my Savage Rifts campaign, one of the PCs has Invisibility powers (soon to be Master-versions, which provide TRUE invisibility, which means even if they DO get noticed, they apply -8 penalty to any attacks that target her, which is insanely epic in Savage Worlds).

Untouchable PCs kind of... piss me off. I hate to admit that.
 
Hiding behind an ally in combat seem iffy to me even as a basic concept unless the guy the hobbit is hiding behind is standing stock still with legs together. If he is actually fighting, moving about, shifting through cool combat stances, then he becomes impossible as a hiding place.

My ruling would be that a medium-sized target can act a hiding place if his action for the round is "acting as a hiding place". If he wants slay orcs or something, he can't act as a hiding place too. At most, he could attack at a disadvantage, and hobbit behind him can hide at a disadvantage.

I'd still give the hobbit some cover for being behind the other guy, but he isn't going to be invisible and untargetable.

Bear in mind, I have only skimmed 5E, and I haven't read AiME at all, so my ruling may be off-base.
 
I don't know the rules you're using but as Baulderstone said, this makes zero sense unless he's hiding behind a stationary object. But also, the minute he pops out to attack he is not hidden anymore and it's unfathomable that no one sees him hide behind the exact same object he just jumped out from behind. I think common sense needs to be applied no matter what the rules might say or imply.
 
Baulderstone said:
Hiding behind an ally in combat seem iffy to me even as a basic concept unless the guy the hobbit is hiding behind is standing stock still with legs together. If he is actually fighting, moving about, shifting through cool combat stances, then he becomes impossible as a hiding place.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It seems ridiculous to me.
 
He's hiding behind a dwarf? Hobbits in middle earth are not much smaller than dwarfs, so I'm picturing some 3-foot tall guy (presumably with backpack and gear poking out) trying to hide behind a 4-foot tall guy who keeps moving around 'cause he's, you know, fighting. Doesn't seem like a realistic hiding place from which to make sneak attacks to me.
 
Apocryphal said:
He's hiding behind a dwarf? Hobbits in middle earth are not much smaller than dwarfs, so I'm picturing some 3-foot tall guy (presumably with backpack and gear poking out) trying to hide behind a 4-foot tall guy who keeps moving around 'cause he's, you know, fighting. Doesn't seem like a realistic hiding place from which to make sneak attacks to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, but RAW, Dwarfs are Medium-sized creatures, so they count...
 
First off, you can't hide from a creature that can see you (p.177 of the PHB). So if the hobbit literally can't pop out, attack and then hide in one round, by RAW, because the enemy he's attacking is going to see him 95% of the time (p.195 of the PHB says this is true, as you give up your location regardless of whether the attack hits or misses). I didn't see anything in the AiME book that overrules this. The rules pretty clearly have this covered.

I can see ways in which I would allow hiding behind an ally for the first attack (such as, say, a hobbit moving with a ranger behind their cloak to lunge out and attack), because it's literally only working on that first attack...it'll take a huge shift in circumstances for the hobbit to successfully hide from a foe again (though you could make an argument for the hobbit shifting to a new hiding place and attacking a different enemy...just not the same one).
 
Necrozius said:
I agree, but RAW, Dwarfs are Medium-sized creatures, so they count...
Click to expand...

It works for me. If a dwarf is rushing toward you with an axe, are you focused on the dwarf or on the unassuming guy running behind him with a dagger who is also proficient in remaining hidden?
 
Tommy Brownell said:
It works for me. If a dwarf is rushing toward you with an axe, are you focused on the dwarf or on the unassuming guy running behind him with a dagger who is also proficient in remaining hidden?
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between "wow, gotta watch that attacking dwarf" and "wow, no way to see what's behind an attacking dwarf even though the dwarf is in constant motion because the hobbit and dwarf are perfectly synchronizing their movements so as to to render the hobbit invisible for all intents and purposes."

This reminds me of bad TV shows where people don't notice eavesdroppers who are in their peripheral vision in broad daylight with no obstacles because that's the only way the clumsy writers could figure out for Character C to learn the secret that Character A and Character B are discussing loud enough to be overheard from 10 feet away...

Also, try "remaining hidden" while running with a dagger sometime.
 
Well, really we're talking about two different things: In RAW, a hobbit and a dwarf aren't running anywhere together because they're moving on completely separate initiatives, most likely. But a hobbit hiding behind a dwarf as an orc approaches still totally works for me.

I'll have to think if I can find any situations in fiction in which someone was able to move more than a few feet with a weapon drawn and successfully sneak up on a foe. Might be hard to, but I'll see what I can come up with. Especially trained rogues who do that kinda thing as a matter of training.

Either way, do whatever you want to in your own games. I'd probably allow it in mine. I pretty much stop giving fuck all about what's really realistic about the time the elves show up.
 
I'm looking at the Sage Advice compendium from the WotC site, and found this, which seems relevant:

Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”

So that seems to negate the normal rule on 177 of the PHB about not hiding while in view. :sad:
 
It's the age-old dilemma: a PC gets a super powerful combination of tactics, special abilities and stats that can make most encounters super easy without GM wankery (eg, adding in monsters that specifically counter those ideas).

Again, to be clear, I'm NOT:

- a dick GM: I want to be nice to the players and present reasonable challenges

- obsessed with realism

I'm just concerned about very powerful, untouchable characters that can only be challenged by deliberate meta-counters from the GM (a rogue who gets sneak attacks every single round and can't be seen by anyone ever because the can also hide every round thanks to a +10 Stealth roll).
 
I get it. It bugs me too. I only recently bought the 5e core books, and there's a lot there that gets me excited to play it, but this is the sort of thing that makes me wonder ...
 
I mean, this is the point where you have to put the DM hat on and make a ruling that works for the game. Even the lead designer has admitted he's thrown out the entire initiative system in favor of one that he personally likes better.
 
Tommy Brownell said:
I mean, this is the point where you have to put the DM hat on and make a ruling that works for the game. Even the lead designer has admitted he's thrown out the entire initiative system in favor of one that he personally likes better.
Click to expand...
The weird thing is, that's harder for me and my group with D&D than other games, for some reason. They're pretty reasonable guys, but when we play D&D, it brings out the power-gamer, min-maxer, rules-lawyer, "I'm going to stop the game cold and argue with you about this for a half and hour while surfing on my phone to find links that confirm the interpretation that I want to be true" monster-player in some of them. It's the oddest thing, and I don't know where that comes from, considering how mellow they've been when playing other systems ... :sad:
 
My players, two of them at least, will push to see what they can get away with, but if I put my foot down, we're done. I don't think it happens to us in D&D any more than it happens in Savage Worlds. But they know I'm not being a dick to be a dick.
 
TheophilusCarter said:
The weird thing is, that's harder for me and my group with D&D than other games, for some reason. They're pretty reasonable guys, but when we play D&D, it brings out the power-gamer, min-maxer, rules-lawyer, "I'm going to stop the game cold and argue with you about this for a half and hour while surfing on my phone to find links that confirm the interpretation that I want to be true" monster-player in some of them. It's the oddest thing, and I don't know where that comes from, considering how mellow they've been when playing other systems ... :sad:
Click to expand...
That's why I run B/X with a garnish of RC when I do D&D. WotC era D&D is built from the ground up to support that mindset. That's fine if you want it, but I don't.
 
Ha, yeah. I have one player that responds to that pretty well most of the time. When we first started playing together, it would really throw me off. I try not to railroad, but I also expect the players to go along with the adventure's premise. He would usually see what he could do to subvert it. I realized that the best way to deal with it was to let him! It would cause the game to come to a screeching halt, and which point, he'd realize that we literally couldn't keep playing that day unless he went along a bit better. That seemed to do the trick after that.

EDIT: Oops, got lapped by Baulderstone. This was a response to Tommy ...
 
TheophilusCarter said:
Ha, yeah. I have one player that responds to that pretty well most of the time. When we first started playing together, it would really throw me off. I try not to railroad, but I also expect the players to go along with the adventure's premise. He would usually see what he could do to subvert it. I realized that the best way to deal with it was to let him! It would cause the game to come to a screeching halt, and which point, he'd realize that we literally couldn't keep playing that day unless he went along a bit better. That seemed to do the trick after that.

EDIT: Oops, got lapped by Baulderstone. This was a response to Tommy ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, my group and I meet in the middle. I don't expect them to follow the trail blindly, but they do make it a point to bite at the hooks. It works out.
 
Baulderstone said:
That's why I run B/X with a garnish of RC when I do D&D. WotC era D&D is built from the ground up to support that mindset. That's fine if you want it, but I don't.
Click to expand...
Yah, right now, I'm playing in an ACKS game and running a C&C game, and there don't seem to be any problems. I've also run some OSRish stuff for this group, and not had problems, usually because I can just say "Well, this is old-school, rules-light, 'rulings not rules' stuff - you know how it goes," and they go along just fine ...

The thing is, I really like the 5e rules - it's a really nice, modern take on classic D&D. I just need to decide if I like it enough to put the effort into dealing with various kinds of behavior ...

Wait, what was the topic again?! I'm afraid I've drifted the hell out of this thread ...
 
TheophilusCarter said:
I get it. It bugs me too. I only recently bought the 5e core books, and there's a lot there that gets me excited to play it, but this is the sort of thing that makes me wonder ...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sweat it. I think the rules for 5e are very clearly written. When you listen to Crawford on most of the rules questions he always says to look at the language used.

As someone else pointed out here Crawford has been very careful with his terminology and most of the time these questions come from wilful or sloppy reading of the rules.

And there have always been those out to twist or abuse rules against common sense, I don't think the system can fix that.
 
Voros said:
I wouldn't sweat it. I think the rules for 5e are very clearly written. When you listen to Crawford on most of the rules questions he always says to look at the language used.

As someone else pointed out here Crawford has been very careful with his terminology and most of the time these questions come from wilful or sloppy reading of the rules.

And there have always been those out to twist or abuse rules against common sense, I don't think the system can fix that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that 5E can work just fine. It's just that a more structured system can always be bent more easily to exploit. However, if you are willing to bring the hammer down on nonsense, like Tommy is, there really isn't an issue.
 
For sure and I do see the point that the more rules there are the more temptation or inclination there is for players to rules laywer, min/max, etc.
 
TheophilusCarter said:
\Wait, what was the topic again?! I'm afraid I've drifted the hell out of this thread ...
Click to expand...
I love the alert system in this forum, but it is great for getting me confused about what the thread topic is. I'm going back and forth with alerts in this thread and the "Too many character options ruin the fun of character options". They have completely blurred together in my mind now.
 
Baulderstone said:
Yeah, I think that 5E can work just fine. It's just that a more structured system can always be bent more easily to exploit. However, if you are willing to bring the hammer down on nonsense, like Tommy is, there really isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

I have a really great group. It helps. As I've probably mentioned before, the only reason my group even knows about stuff like edition wars and story games vs trad games and so on is because I mention it or they see my social media posts. Not a one gives a damn otherwise. They just wanna play pretend and occasionally score an advantage if they can.
 
Voros said:
ost of the time these questions come from wilful or sloppy reading of the rules.
Click to expand...

That comes across as a bit insulting.

I'm operating in good faith here. The rules seem pretty clear and where there are vagaries, we are supposed to make rulings. I'm asking for assistance with coming up with a suitable, fair ruling (or if I need to make one at all).

Good advice so far, thanks. Still not 100% sure how I'll handle it yet. I'll sleep on it...
 
I can't help but think, though I prefer "theatre of the mind" when it comes to my RPGs, that this is a situation that would be solved by the use of miniatures.
 
When I’m in this situation, and I’ve got people hiding behind other people, I let it happen.

However, I surround people, and don’t let them establish a line. This makes it incredibly hard to hide. I don’t let them hide behind prone people. I double team so they can’t just assume they are going to get out of sight.

Your min maxer friend is correct, but don’t use fireballs. Use Constitution save stuff, like gas. Use Wisdom save stuff like hypnotic pattern. Emulate some spells with strength saves. Target the fighter’s dex save and send him prone (ball bearings are dc10). Make him run to the rescue of the wizard. This makes the rogue struggle.

As far as the fighter defending, I forget which power allows that, but double check that it applies to ranged. I find that a few low level archers are quite effective at sowing chaos and breaking lines. They don’t even have to be strong. I like skeletons with longbows. Put them so they are not easy to get to... certainly not on the ground. And spread them out so they aren’t fireball targets. Soon, that rogue starts looking like a very good candidate to go after those guys. But now he’s broken cover and is not stabbing the line.

Always always combined arms. No melee without ranged if you can help it. Single type combats are for parties that sneak and don’t attract attention. That’s the reward.
 
Raleel said:
When I’m in this situation, and I’ve got people hiding behind other people, I let it happen.

However, I surround people, and don’t let them establish a line. This makes it incredibly hard to hide. I don’t let them hide behind prone people. I double team so they can’t just assume they are going to get out of sight.

Your min maxer friend is correct, but don’t use fireballs. Use Constitution save stuff, like gas. Use Wisdom save stuff like hypnotic pattern. Emulate some spells with strength saves. Target the fighter’s dex save and send him prone (ball bearings are dc10). Make him run to the rescue of the wizard. This makes the rogue struggle.

As far as the fighter defending, I forget which power allows that, but double check that it applies to ranged. I find that a few low level archers are quite effective at sowing chaos and breaking lines. They don’t even have to be strong. I like skeletons with longbows. Put them so they are not easy to get to... certainly not on the ground. And spread them out so they aren’t fireball targets. Soon, that rogue starts looking like a very good candidate to go after those guys. But now he’s broken cover and is not stabbing the line.

Always always combined arms. No melee without ranged if you can help it. Single type combats are for parties that sneak and don’t attract attention. That’s the reward.
Click to expand...

Protection
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than
you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction
to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be
wielding a shield.

Yeah, it should work against range, providing he's not used his reaction and has a shield.
 
Tommy Brownell said:
Protection
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than
you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction
to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be
wielding a shield.

Yeah, it should work against range, providing he's not used his reaction and has a shield.
Click to expand...

That said, my reading of that means it should only apply to a single attack per round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top