[5e] Hiding in combat

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Thanks!

And thus why we have low level guys. It’s not so much that they are going to hit a lot. It’s that there are a lot of them to hit, and are going to hit once in a while. Two shots at him, they are unlikely to hit anyways, but you can’t be sure which to apply the protection to. It’s before the roll after all

And yes, unless you get more than one reaction, it’s only one roll a round. Which means they are free to move away from the fighter and hunt the rogue.
 
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...

My comment wasn't aimed at you Necro, sorry if you read it as an insult, I was just talking in general about some of the questions I've seen come up in Sage advice.
 
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.
I could see it going either way. Minis often contribute to players thinking of every other character standing like statues on the battlefield when they take their turn. Rather than seeing the fighter in their mind battling to and fro with an orc, they see the fighter standing still in a separate 5' square like a statue. Of course, they can hide behind him!
 
I could see it going either way. Minis often contribute to players thinking of every other character standing like statues on the battlefield when they take their turn. Rather than seeing the fighter in their mind battling to and fro with an orc, they see the fighter standing still in a separate 5' square like a statue. Of course, they can hide behind him!

Sure, until the moment when they move their miniature into sight to make an attack, or any enemy approaches from the sides though
 
Sure, until the moment when they move their miniature into sight to make an attack, or any enemy approaches from the sides though
Yeah. That's what I meant by it going either way. Like every approach to RPGs, it can solve problems and add them. It is definitely good for establishing line of sight.
 
There's several things going on here:

Lightfoot Halflings have an Ability that do allow you to Hide behind Medium Sized creatures. (Techincally "a size larger than you," which may matter for Enlarge spell and the like.)

Sneak Attack may be trigger by either: a) having Adv (which being hidden is one manner), or b) having an ally next to the target 5' -- AND -- your attack uses either: a) finesse weapon, or b) a ranged weapon attack.

(Ranged Weapon text was RAI ruled to be a ranged weapon attack. That opened things like Javelin and Throwing Hammer, non-finesse melee weapons that can be Thrown, for SA usage.)

Further, Sneak Attack is used once per turn, decided upon after whether the attack lands or not. This does 2 things. You may have multiple attempts to SA, but once it lands and you choose for it to go off, it's "once per turn" is used. And you may use SA on another's turn, which means you can SA with Opportunity Attacks.

Leaving Hide does not necessarily turn off a Sneak Attack because there's two ways to open the condition -- if an ally is within 5' the conditoon is still open. So you very much can Sneak Attack in melee AND into melee.

Further, 5e allows you to shoot through people/creatures. The only penalty is Half Cover, which is +2 AC to the target. 5e explicitly states Nothing Stacks, barring Specific Beats General. Nothing further was specified in compounding cover, therefore any number of creatures may be shot past to the target and the only penalty will be is +2 AC to target. (You always use the highest cover available in line of sight. So Three-quarters Cover, +5 AC, will override all the Half Cover in the way. As too would Full Cover, which prevents targeting entirely.)

Your hidden Lightfoot Halfling may Hide behind his Med sized friends. They may shoot through these friends to retain their Hide Adv for Sneak Attack; the only penalty for shooting through your friend is +2 AC to target. They may also shoot (or finesse melee weapon) an enemy and still trigger Sneak Attack as long as an ally is 5' next to the target.

Yes, the Lightfoot Halfling can Hide behind an ally, stay hidden in second rank and attack the melee opponent with a whip (melee finesse reach) through the ally, target gains +2 AC, with Advantage, and if it lands Sneak Attack. It would have Adv from Hidden AND ally within 5'.

I typed all this by phone at a cold fast food place, so forgive me. I will come back and cite chapter and verse if anyone wants. :smile:

PS: Easiest counter is Walking Around. If the NPCs can logically infer location, because they just witnessed something weird, they can walk around and then See the Halfling, also ending Hide (barring other context, like more cover and concealment,).
 
Last edited:
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?
I think you should give yourself permission to be ok with the abilities the game you are running gives to the players! Embrace the game’s features! Halflings hiding behind men, elves, and dwarves fits in quite nicely with the whole Middle Earth vibe… consider how the movies present Bilbo “disappearing” when the dwarves are marched off as prisoners. This is part of the Middle Earth experience!

That being said, at this point the rules have been fairly well parsed. In support of not worrying about the hidden hobbit is that the hobbit gets to “constantly dish out” the sneak attack damage whether hidden or not if the target is adjacent to another conscious and unrestrained enemy. So all that hiding is doing is making him harder to see. Also, if he is hiding he is not using the bonus action to dash or disengage. Honestly, as suggested above enemies should smartly move around the tank to identify to where the hobbit disappeared.

Also, keep in mind, if the hobbit gets into melee with an enemy to attack and then moves out of the enemies adjacent square, the enemy gets an attack of opportunity. (If the hobbit is adjacent to the enemy and being permitted to hide behind another character adjacent to both the hobbit and enemy, I would reconsider that application of the hobbit's ability.) If the hobbit is using his bonus action to disengage from the enemy (thereby negating the attack of opportunity) the hobbit cannot use a SECOND bonus action to hide that turn. Only one bonus action is allowed!

If you are allowing your hidden hobbit to move out of his hiding spot and then attack and still gain the benefits of being hidden, you may want to revisit how hiding works as discussed above. That is being too lenient under most circumstances.

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 think you should give yourself permission to create tougher encounters for the party! You know you are a softie… so relish in a little flirtation with danger… you won’t feel the annoyance if your party starts limping out of encounters! Your players will likely enjoy the new challenging encounters and will appreciate how their strengths allow them to overcome the obstacles. When the (beneficial) teamwork between the characters is what is needed to save their lives, it will also help with the advice above to be ok with the powers that the game you are running gives to your players. If you go too far your players will let you know they aren’t enjoying it. (If you know your group has communication problems, you may want to address those first.)

Things to consider… your party is sufficiently high level that the rogue has a +10 stealth. You may want to occasionally use enemies with bonuses to perception (which is what the stealth check is opposed by). Remember, the hobbit is not untouchable… unless you provide enemies that cannot see him.

You may want to put the party in conditions which give the rogue an opportunity to shine. Put them in dimlight (which puts the perception check at disadvantage). Then make sure there are one or two rogues amongst the enemy that will do unto others as the party’s rogue does unto them. That should feed your sense of equity!

For a change of pace… you could also craft an encounter where the enemy have some ranged combatants and through the layout of the location have access to one or both flanking positions. Each flanking side requires an additional medium sized party member for the hobbit to hide behind. If the medium creatures take up a triangle to surround the hobbit and give him a square to roll to hide in… you now have the perfect opportunity to use AOE attacks and make them pay for huddling together so tightly.
 
Last edited:
You might try non lethal offenses. Have people lob glass vials of foul smelling goods. Save vs con or have disadvantage on attacks. It in no way negates the players special abilities, it challenges them but doesn't kill them and you can start by making last only a few rounds. That should hinder without debilitating them.
 
I should add that it is perfectly OK for certain thngs to be awesome in their optimal context.

I do have my issues with Sneak Attack, but it stems from friction between setting aesthetics vs. mechanics. But a Lightfoot Halfling Rogue using party teamwork to gain advantage by scurrying between everybody's legs, sort of working as intended. Just like Tanky McTankerson holding cordon in dungeon, allowing back ranks to pelt the threat, is working as intended.

It's when it's the default answer for everything that it becomes a problem. And for me that's where Sneak Attack fails; its damage throughput as widget tends to overshadow gear and more complex tactics. It's too good of a button to mash, IMO. I similarly have issues with at-will cantrips and their power inflation over class levels. But that's a topic for another time.
 
I realized I haven't given you much help on how to counter such tricks. So let me help:
- Walk Around and Spot. (This is best for wider open spaces.)
- Grapple and Drag them. (Better for tighter spaces. Grab front rank tank to get to the sauishies, or the rogue itself.)
- Focused fire. (Remember the PEMDAS of fantasy combat targeting logically understood by sapients. Kill first the cleric (the undo button), next mage (the wild card nuke), then rogue (the squishy ranged/skirmisher), lastly fighter (tank). Whe you have to deal with the fighter (barbarian, palandin, etc) first, that means they did their job right and became the greatest threat that kneecapping their supply lines and support is too dangerous. Reward that.)
- Retreat to a better tactical position. (This is like THE CHIOCE often wholly ignored by NPCs and PCs alike. It so destroys combat buff setup! And it reintroduces Surprise!)
- Environmental manipulation to induce status effects and board control. (Either actions, gear, or magic. Everything from darkness, to oil fire, ball bearings, caltrops, fireballs, web, etc.)

Then I'd worry about specific widgets to counter the PC. Setting context should be the main area of equilibrium for you as the GM to counter "builds" -- and if the game doesn't support that, it's probably a bad game and needs heavy houserule editing before actual play.
 
Great advice everyone, thanks.

I agree that, thematically, I'm very fine with the idea. I just felt something was "off" in the game mechanic sense.

Anyway, we had a fantastic game session last night and, of course, I didn't have to say a word: the other players piped in immediately when the halfling rogue wanted to repeat the same tactic: "how can you hide while we're surrounded on all sides?" It all worked out and he still did amazingly-described, life-saving sneak attacks while still sharing the same peril as the rest of the party.

All's well that ends well.
 
Well, I'm late to the party, but here's how we handle it. My longest running 5e game has us all at about 16th level, and we've got a halfling assassin the party, so this particular issue is on the menu every day.

I think the way we handle it is fairly close to that SE post you referenced in that the opponents being "aware" of the halfling's location somewhat trumps visibility.

The halfling can hide behind the fighter and as long as their stealth check is not beaten by the opponent's perception check *and* the opponents don't regain line-of-sight to the halfling, then they are not visible, and get most of the usual benefits. The halfling can't just pop out and get advantage on a ranged attack if the opponents just saw them hide behind the fighter. However, if a new opponent, unaware of the halfling's presence, joins the fray while the halfling is hidden, then they can get advantage on that new opponent.

If the halfling can move to a new location while unobserved, then they can get advantage from being hidden at that new location.

This is obviously a departure from RAW with regard to being "visible" and gaining advantage, but given how grey the whole sneak thing in 5e is (and seemingly intentionally so), that gives me no pause at all. The net effect is a little more like older versions of sneak attack where you get the bonus damage when flanking or initial surprise.
 
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?

I agree with what you found in stack exchange, as soon as they pop out they are seen and lose advantage. You can explain to your players how you adjudicated this wrong, and all reasonable folks should agree. Now the Halfling can still do his thing, just needs to maneuver behind the enemy so this may limit him to terrain that allows this or perhaps he hides behind someone on the flank then pops out around and behind.

Stuff like this though makes me glad using another rules system.
 
My comment wasn't aimed at you Necro, sorry if you read it as an insult, I was just talking in general about some of the questions I've seen come up in Sage advice.
Then again, the old "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" column was equally disingenuous...does that balance it out?
 
Such columns must be difficult to balance, you want to make sure that your rules are clear but by answering every nit pick rules question you can set off a cascade of unforseen rules complications. The cure can be worse than the supposed sickness.
 
Such columns must be difficult to balance, you want to make sure that your rules are clear but by answering every nit pick rules question you can set off a cascade of unforseen rules complications. The cure can be worse than the supposed sickness.
Very true.

After this thread, I'm leaning more and more on following what makes sense at the moment, in the current fiction instead of waiting for a detailed rule or exception to handle ambiguities. I get overly concerned some times: my players are usually quite chill.
 
Very true.

After this thread, I'm leaning more and more on following what makes sense at the moment, in the current fiction instead of waiting for a detailed rule or exception to handle ambiguities. I get overly concerned some times: my players are usually quite chill.
Part of the reason that RPGs need a human GM is that any rule set is going either going to be vague enough that it has holes or have enough specific rules in place that they can interact in unexpected ways. Or both.

When you hit a situation where the rules interact in a way that seems broken or doesn't make sense, pouring more rules on the pile is a probably not going to fix it. It's just better for the GM to step in and make a situational ruling.

As you say, most players a pretty chill. They'd usually rather have the GM make a ruling that makes sense than adhere to rules that produce nonsense.
 
I suffer from "GM's Curse" as well ... :grin:
I find that when I am worried about coming off as heavy-handed about a ruling, it's often a good idea to just to bring up the issue and share your interpretation conversationally. 90% of the time, everyone will just say, "Yeah, that makes sense" and get back to playing.

Even players that are rules lawyers, once they have pulled off their awesome exploit, will probably be happy to plug the hole. They might even have good ideas on how to do it. Doing the same trick over and over again gets boring for the players as well.
 
Part of the reason that RPGs need a human GM is that any rule set is going either going to be vague enough that it has holes or have enough specific rules in place that they can interact in unexpected ways. Or both.

I find it's also better when the rules don't try to be so comprehensive as to make these issues arise in the first place. Common sense judgments and rulings trump bad or poorly phrased rules, and it gets around players who want to point to a rule as an authority that allows what they propose despite the proposition itself being bunk.
 
I find it's also better when the rules don't try to be so comprehensive as to make these issues arise in the first place. Common sense judgments and rulings trump bad or poorly phrased rules, and it gets around players who want to point to a rule as an authority that allows what they propose despite the proposition itself being bunk.
Same here. I craved detailed rules more when I was a new GM. Over time, as I acquired both life experience and experience running games, I got more confident just adjudicating situations on my own.

I think it is notable that RPGs of the '70s, when the audience was still heavily made up of experienced wargamers, were actually pretty damn light. The rush towards games with a rule for everything peaked during the '80s, when you had an influx of kids into the hobby. Then when those kids hit maturity in the '90s, games shifted back to being simpler again.
 
Same here. I craved detailed rules more when I was a new GM. Over time, as I acquired both life experience and experience running games, I got more confident just adjudicating situations on my own.

I think it is notable that RPGs of the '70s, when the audience was still heavily made up of experienced wargamers, were actually pretty damn light. The rush towards games with a rule for everything peaked during the '80s, when you had an influx of kids into the hobby. Then when those kids hit maturity in the '90s, games shifted back to being simpler again.

I find that I personally don't have the patience to read and digest the 300+ page rulebooks I've seen. One issue is they are frequently poorly written and edited and take several paragraphs where one would do fine. Another is they often take up space addressing fringe cases that may never come up in years of play (Hero System 5th edition comes to mind). Unfortunately I think there are some GMs and players who want a textual authority so they can avoid making a judgment call, and there also seems to be a compulsion (maybe for economic reasons, I wouldn't know as I don't follow the business) to produce large, glossy, full-color tomes the size of coffee table books. A lot of those books, were you to cut out the art and book the text down to what it's trying to say would be barely half as long.

...brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes...
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top