Skip to main content
Role-playing Games

Return to Answer

removed dead generic link; merged link into body text
Source Link
V2Blast ♦
V2Blast ♦
  • 50.9k
  • 10
  • 227
  • 309

Yes, but not without penalty

There is advice from Mike Mearls on this topic on Twitter (http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/sniper/ and http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/).There is advice from Mike Mearls on this topic on Twitter. I recognise that the designers have not always been consistent, but on this issue they do seem to be.

The advice is this:

  • A creature can attack from behind cover, even just a tree, and hide again to repeat the process.

  • But when it attempts to hide again, it does so with disadvantage on its Stealth check.

So a rogue can repeatedly hide in combat to sneak attack the same enemy, but it's harder after doing it the first time, owing to disadvantage on subsequent attempts at hiding. Because it's harder for the rogue to hide, it's also harder to get advantage on the next attack for being unseen.

What else?

We can make some other deductions from the way the designers interpret the rules.

If you are hidden behind cover and you emerge to attack, are you still hidden at the point that you make the attack?

The designers unequivocally say that, if you are hidden, you can emerge from cover to make an attack with advantage. This means that, even though your target may have line of sight to you, you are unseen by it. And the only thing that can make you unseen in this circumstance is being hidden. So, if you are hidden, but come into a creature's line of sight, you can still remain unseen by it and hidden from it.

But that could get ridiculous couldn't it? Couldn't I just prance around right before your eyes, so long as I started hidden?

Agreed. I doubt the prancing was part of the designers' intention.

I think it is reasonable to assume that they did intend for you to be able remain in your current position, while peeking round cover to watch or aim an attack at another creature. There is also the errata that says that you can remain hidden if you are not clearly seen. Whether you're 'clearly seen' is a matter for the DM's discretion, but probably includes three quarters cover, which is what you would have if you were to peek out of full cover. It might extend to any partial cover or obscurement. But it does not extend to being in plain sight of another creature - so no prancing!

If your opponent has seen you move behind cover, can you hide from her?

Yes you can, but if she has a shrewd idea of where you are (eg you're very likely to be behind the tree she last saw you standing beside), you take disadvantage on your Stealth check to hide.

[As an aside, I think the designers are making a mistake here: your attempt at hiding isn't intrinsically worse, it's your opponent's ability to spot you that is better. So their Perception check should get advantage rather than your Stealth check suffering disadvantage.]

The take home message

If you are hidden, you can peer round cover without being seen and line up your shot; you have advantage on your attack. If you're not hidden, you are spotted as you peer round the cover so are no longer unseen; you do not gain advantage on your attack.

Once you have attacked in this way, you can attempt to hide in the same place again, but your check has disadvantage.

Yes, but not without penalty

There is advice from Mike Mearls on this topic on Twitter (http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/sniper/ and http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/). I recognise that the designers have not always been consistent, but on this issue they do seem to be.

The advice is this:

  • A creature can attack from behind cover, even just a tree, and hide again to repeat the process.

  • But when it attempts to hide again, it does so with disadvantage on its Stealth check.

So a rogue can repeatedly hide in combat to sneak attack the same enemy, but it's harder after doing it the first time, owing to disadvantage on subsequent attempts at hiding. Because it's harder for the rogue to hide, it's also harder to get advantage on the next attack for being unseen.

What else?

We can make some other deductions from the way the designers interpret the rules.

If you are hidden behind cover and you emerge to attack, are you still hidden at the point that you make the attack?

The designers unequivocally say that, if you are hidden, you can emerge from cover to make an attack with advantage. This means that, even though your target may have line of sight to you, you are unseen by it. And the only thing that can make you unseen in this circumstance is being hidden. So, if you are hidden, but come into a creature's line of sight, you can still remain unseen by it and hidden from it.

But that could get ridiculous couldn't it? Couldn't I just prance around right before your eyes, so long as I started hidden?

Agreed. I doubt the prancing was part of the designers' intention.

I think it is reasonable to assume that they did intend for you to be able remain in your current position, while peeking round cover to watch or aim an attack at another creature. There is also the errata that says that you can remain hidden if you are not clearly seen. Whether you're 'clearly seen' is a matter for the DM's discretion, but probably includes three quarters cover, which is what you would have if you were to peek out of full cover. It might extend to any partial cover or obscurement. But it does not extend to being in plain sight of another creature - so no prancing!

If your opponent has seen you move behind cover, can you hide from her?

Yes you can, but if she has a shrewd idea of where you are (eg you're very likely to be behind the tree she last saw you standing beside), you take disadvantage on your Stealth check to hide.

[As an aside, I think the designers are making a mistake here: your attempt at hiding isn't intrinsically worse, it's your opponent's ability to spot you that is better. So their Perception check should get advantage rather than your Stealth check suffering disadvantage.]

The take home message

If you are hidden, you can peer round cover without being seen and line up your shot; you have advantage on your attack. If you're not hidden, you are spotted as you peer round the cover so are no longer unseen; you do not gain advantage on your attack.

Once you have attacked in this way, you can attempt to hide in the same place again, but your check has disadvantage.

Yes, but not without penalty

There is advice from Mike Mearls on this topic on Twitter. I recognise that the designers have not always been consistent, but on this issue they do seem to be.

The advice is this:

  • A creature can attack from behind cover, even just a tree, and hide again to repeat the process.

  • But when it attempts to hide again, it does so with disadvantage on its Stealth check.

So a rogue can repeatedly hide in combat to sneak attack the same enemy, but it's harder after doing it the first time, owing to disadvantage on subsequent attempts at hiding. Because it's harder for the rogue to hide, it's also harder to get advantage on the next attack for being unseen.

What else?

We can make some other deductions from the way the designers interpret the rules.

If you are hidden behind cover and you emerge to attack, are you still hidden at the point that you make the attack?

The designers unequivocally say that, if you are hidden, you can emerge from cover to make an attack with advantage. This means that, even though your target may have line of sight to you, you are unseen by it. And the only thing that can make you unseen in this circumstance is being hidden. So, if you are hidden, but come into a creature's line of sight, you can still remain unseen by it and hidden from it.

But that could get ridiculous couldn't it? Couldn't I just prance around right before your eyes, so long as I started hidden?

Agreed. I doubt the prancing was part of the designers' intention.

I think it is reasonable to assume that they did intend for you to be able remain in your current position, while peeking round cover to watch or aim an attack at another creature. There is also the errata that says that you can remain hidden if you are not clearly seen. Whether you're 'clearly seen' is a matter for the DM's discretion, but probably includes three quarters cover, which is what you would have if you were to peek out of full cover. It might extend to any partial cover or obscurement. But it does not extend to being in plain sight of another creature - so no prancing!

If your opponent has seen you move behind cover, can you hide from her?

Yes you can, but if she has a shrewd idea of where you are (eg you're very likely to be behind the tree she last saw you standing beside), you take disadvantage on your Stealth check to hide.

[As an aside, I think the designers are making a mistake here: your attempt at hiding isn't intrinsically worse, it's your opponent's ability to spot you that is better. So their Perception check should get advantage rather than your Stealth check suffering disadvantage.]

The take home message

If you are hidden, you can peer round cover without being seen and line up your shot; you have advantage on your attack. If you're not hidden, you are spotted as you peer round the cover so are no longer unseen; you do not gain advantage on your attack.

Once you have attacked in this way, you can attempt to hide in the same place again, but your check has disadvantage.

Source Link
Clearly Toughpick
Clearly Toughpick
  • 2k
  • 2
  • 16
  • 27

Yes, but not without penalty

There is advice from Mike Mearls on this topic on Twitter (http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/sniper/ and http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/the-rogue-and-the-ogre/). I recognise that the designers have not always been consistent, but on this issue they do seem to be.

The advice is this:

  • A creature can attack from behind cover, even just a tree, and hide again to repeat the process.

  • But when it attempts to hide again, it does so with disadvantage on its Stealth check.

So a rogue can repeatedly hide in combat to sneak attack the same enemy, but it's harder after doing it the first time, owing to disadvantage on subsequent attempts at hiding. Because it's harder for the rogue to hide, it's also harder to get advantage on the next attack for being unseen.

What else?

We can make some other deductions from the way the designers interpret the rules.

If you are hidden behind cover and you emerge to attack, are you still hidden at the point that you make the attack?

The designers unequivocally say that, if you are hidden, you can emerge from cover to make an attack with advantage. This means that, even though your target may have line of sight to you, you are unseen by it. And the only thing that can make you unseen in this circumstance is being hidden. So, if you are hidden, but come into a creature's line of sight, you can still remain unseen by it and hidden from it.

But that could get ridiculous couldn't it? Couldn't I just prance around right before your eyes, so long as I started hidden?

Agreed. I doubt the prancing was part of the designers' intention.

I think it is reasonable to assume that they did intend for you to be able remain in your current position, while peeking round cover to watch or aim an attack at another creature. There is also the errata that says that you can remain hidden if you are not clearly seen. Whether you're 'clearly seen' is a matter for the DM's discretion, but probably includes three quarters cover, which is what you would have if you were to peek out of full cover. It might extend to any partial cover or obscurement. But it does not extend to being in plain sight of another creature - so no prancing!

If your opponent has seen you move behind cover, can you hide from her?

Yes you can, but if she has a shrewd idea of where you are (eg you're very likely to be behind the tree she last saw you standing beside), you take disadvantage on your Stealth check to hide.

[As an aside, I think the designers are making a mistake here: your attempt at hiding isn't intrinsically worse, it's your opponent's ability to spot you that is better. So their Perception check should get advantage rather than your Stealth check suffering disadvantage.]

The take home message

If you are hidden, you can peer round cover without being seen and line up your shot; you have advantage on your attack. If you're not hidden, you are spotted as you peer round the cover so are no longer unseen; you do not gain advantage on your attack.

Once you have attacked in this way, you can attempt to hide in the same place again, but your check has disadvantage.