I have been fairly critical of the rogue on these forums. It's not because I don't like the class, truth is I love the rogue. I have been critical because from a mathematical perspective dual wielding is far and away the best way to play the rogue unless you can gain advantage in some way consistently. Gaining advantage provides the ranged rogue and the single handed rogue a way to close the gap.
Enter the new UA class variants. For those that haven't read it yet, you can find it here. Among a ton of things, you'll find a new optional feature called Cunning Action: Aim. Here is the text:
You gain an additional way to use your Cunning Action: carefully aiming your next attack. As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven’t moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn.
I haven't given it a ton of thought yet, but I did want to encourage people to check it out and start a discussion around it. It is seemingly a fantastic solution with excellent trade-offs.
My main concern is Elven Accuracy. With such an easy way to gain advantage, this feat might be too strong. I'm also not sure how multiclassing might work with this but UA material isn't designed with that in mind anyway. If it did become official, there may be some troublesome interactions with other classes. I think it would be fine but that's just my first thought.
From my very own point of view, I'm not a big fan of this new feature.
Ok so you can trade your mobility to get a Sneak Attack. As long as you don't move, you can aim. Say hello to the "Tower Defense" Aarakocra dip in fighter to get Archery + Sharpshooter for the first ASI. What I don't like, is that the rogue doesn't need to rely on his friends or situations to get the Sneak Attack. I fear it can be easier to just stay on a pill of rocks and aim every turns instead of playing. I would give Aim to a roguish archetype, such as Assassin, instead of every rogues.
___________________________-
Ok so, there is a funny way to use Aim, but it really depends on the DM to work. Take Shapeshooter or Crossbow Expert, Take a Net (with proficiency, BG or 1lvl in fighter), the feat will make you able to take off the disadvantage, Aim, get the advantage, throw the Net.
So, rules of Sneak Attack says that you have to hit with a range weapon (or finesse) to trigger your D6s. It doesn't NECESSARILY say that you have to deal damage! If your DM agrees, you could Sneak Attack with a net. I hope you can describe how your opponent takes damages, it could be fun. As a DM, I would allow it only if the player describe how the poor creature takes D6s. For the lulz.
Take 2 Nets with you and a ally who can repair them, it can be very fun for a couple of fights. You don't really need Aim for that, but it surely helps a lot.
Well you also have to trade your bonus action. That means you can't use cunning action or a bonus action attack. It's a pretty big trade off. If I were doing two weapon fighting rogue I'd never use it unless I wouldn't otherwise get sneak attack. For a ranged rogue, you'd probably always use it. For a rogue with one weapon, you'd probably use it fairly often. I thinks it's fantastic.
As for your Aarakorcra fighter dip, you'd be better off taking 5 levels in fighter and just use your normal attacks. That'd open up your bonus action and your movement and mathematically it would basically be the same thing as 4 levels and using aim. In fact, you'd actually do a little more damage on average. I don't see this as a good argument against it. If anything, it illustrates why it's good. Using one attack with advantage is very close to having two attacks.
I also think that your net sneak attack is a pretty ridiculous and unintended. Kudos for finding something funny though.
For a rogue with one weapon... yeah, why not, if you use it to finish the last monster and you don't have any ally around. From my point of view, a rogue who's not out of your range will play hit'n'run, trading its mobility against a Sneak Attack is easy to punish.
In fact, you're right if the rogue has always the good situation that can help him to Sneak Attack. The Tower Defense Aarakocra needs Aim for its SN if it shoot stuff who are not close to one of its ally. What I don't like with Aim is that it doesn't encourage the team-play.
ex: Random Paladin without Aim allowed: "I will move close to this foe to distract it so your rogue can do its job." Random Paladin with Aim allowed: "AIM NOOB"
Even if it's one of its main characteristic, Sneak Attack should not be automatic, the Rogue should not be able to play alone, even by dropping its mobility to peanuts. But again, it's my own point of view. The point of view of a guy who wants to SN with a net.
At the current point with my group, we don't plan to use aim because we're currently having an issue of our group's rogues always going ranged over melee. Which started to happen when they started to see that, advantage w/ range > two attacks @ melee. Which okay, that's one was of looking at it was because they value the safety of ranged over the little bit of damage they'd gain being melee.
If they would've added a variant rule that helps melee then I don't think this would've been such an outcry. One rule that my group is going to try out is a form of backstab mechanic, where once per turn, if they land a sneak attack on a creature facing the opposite direction of them (if applicable) then they'd be able to reroll 1 and 2 once on their sneak attack damage. Currently, we haven't had a rogue in our group try this out, but thought it be a neat idea to throw out there.
How are your ranged rogues always getting advantage? By bonus action hiding? You could make hiding more difficult. After all, if you just got shot by an arrow I'm guessing you're going to know where it came from. Someone isn't going to be able to hide from you very easily. I think the game mechanics are actually set up with bonus action hiding being somewhat difficult. In a dark forest, sure if allow it. In a well lit Hall, no way.
Also, mathematically two attacks is still better than one with advantage unless you have Elven advantage. Otherwise the odds of landing sneak attack are the same. With the melee option you can still attack once and then decide if you want to attack again or disengage (out whatever else).
Another option to make the ranged rogues life more difficult is to put enemies up in their grill. That doesn't really work against the scout but every other rogue will either have to take a feat, attack in melee, shoot at disadvantage, or bonus action disengage.
If they would've added a variant rule that helps melee then I don't think this would've been such an outcry. One rule that my group is going to try out is a form of backstab mechanic, where once per turn, if they land a sneak attack on a creature facing the opposite direction of them (if applicable) then they'd be able to reroll 1 and 2 once on their sneak attack damage. Currently, we haven't had a rogue in our group try this out, but thought it be a neat idea to throw out there.
Also, mathematically two attacks is still better than one with advantage unless you have Elven advantage. Otherwise the odds of landing sneak attack are the same. With the melee option you can still attack once and then decide if you want to attack again or disengage (out whatever else).
Yes, but two attacks doesn't trigger the sneak attack unless you have an ally near your opponent or you're following the swashbuckler archetype. If you have advantage, no need to hide, no need ally, you can roll your D6s. I prefer the melee rogue because playing Hide and Sneak is pretty poor in terms of gameplay. With the Mobility feat (+10ft movement and auto-disengage on the foe you attacked even if you didn't succeed your roll) the Aim action seems useless. It's clearly for range rogue to spam aim/shoot by staying in a safe area. But at the end, you have less to do than a Champion Fighter (who is, at least, exiting to play for crit fishing).
At the end, the Aim create an easy way to play rogue. I'm sure some people will love that, but again, they could put Aim in an archetype instead.
I disagree wholeheartedly with putting it in an archetype. Speaking solely from mathematics, it's such an amazing equalizing mechanic that has such interesting trade-offs. 100% of to the time the melee rogue either uses disengage or an attack on their bonus action. The one handed rogue just disengages. The ranged rogue always tries to hide. If she can't then it's basically a wasted bonus action most of the time. Not having the second option to deal sneak attack damage is a huge decrease in damage. This gives another option and bridges the gap in terms of damage.
I think to make it more balanced it should be a switch out not an add on. So you can take aim to replace dash, disengage or hide. That way a single melee rogue might choose to give up hide and still have the option to disengage and dash. A ranged rogue might instead give up dashing so they can still hide if they needed to move before their shot.
i play the 4th lvl high elf assassin rogue (for long bow / swords and flavor), cunning action: aim came just few days ago so i gave it a try. and yes, feat i took at lvl 4 was elven accuracy. My DM gave me 3 rounds after saying "no more aim for you". its just broken. i've been criting my sneak attacks almost every second attack. and its basicly pretty similar to hiding as your bonus action - you have an advantage anyway. im not even considering breaking this class with something else like ranger (extra d6 from hunters mark), paladin (for extra d6's from smite on top of crits + vow of enmity).
It's tricky. Ranged rogues can theoretically bonus action hide but it's DM dependent and situational. A more on demand option like Aim seems like a great addition. It's less situational but doesn't have the defensive bonus of being hidden, but it does grant advantage on the attack.
I agree that elven advantage is a major increase but let's look at the numbers.
Here are the average rolls:
Normal attack: 10.5
Advantage Attack: ~14
Elven Accuracy: ~15.5
Not a huge increase from normal advantage to elven accuracy. There is a sizable increase in critical chance though.
Normal attack: 5%
Advantage Attack: ~10%
Elven Accuracy: ~14%
So giving up all your movement and your bonus action gains you +3.5 average on rolls and a ~5% critical hit chance increase. With elven accuracy that increases by 1.5 and 4% respectively. I actually think that's a pretty decent trade-off. Elven Accuracy does increase the effectiveness by a decent amount but I think it's comparable to a GWM or Sharpshooter in terms of feat strength.
I think a good comparison is Barbarian. They can't use elven accuracy but they can use GWM and reckless attack for on demand advantage. They get two attacks and crit fishing is extra effective because of brutal critical. The feat increases the damage output by a fair amount, just like Elven accuracy does with the aiming rogue. The rogue can use sharpshooter however they can only do that once per turn and honestly the -5 to hit is probably not worth it beyond tier 1 due to the importance of hitting on your one attack because of sneak attack. Sharpshooter + crossbow expert with Elven accuracy might be too good but that's 3 feats so I'm honestly fine with it.
"Cunning Aim" seems like a devious trap that can be exploited by a clever DM.
All it takes is a rogue in a location with no obvious places to "Hide", and a monster or trap that is capable of substantial threat.
The rogue thinks, "Hmm...maybe I'll use that Cunning Aim", and decides to try and take out a target, thereby reducing their movement to zero.
Suddenly, a trap is triggered, and the rogue is no longer safely out of range.
Or, the monster with multi-attack now has that pesky rogue within their striking distance...sure, one "Evasion" might limit the damage of the first attack...but the rest?
"Cunning Aim" is certainly a welcome addition to land a solid attack...but it is also a temptation that can leave a rogue vulnerable.
And if a player is fond of using it VERY frequently...well, that's just too easy then.
How are your ranged rogues always getting advantage? By bonus action hiding? You could make hiding more difficult. After all, if you just got shot by an arrow I'm guessing you're going to know where it came from. Someone isn't going to be able to hide from you very easily. I think the game mechanics are actually set up with bonus action hiding being somewhat difficult. In a dark forest, sure if allow it. In a well lit Hall, no way.
Also, mathematically two attacks is still better than one with advantage unless you have Elven advantage. Otherwise the odds of landing sneak attack are the same. With the melee option you can still attack once and then decide if you want to attack again or disengage (out whatever else).
Another option to make the ranged rogues life more difficult is to put enemies up in their grill. That doesn't really work against the scout but every other rogue will either have to take a feat, attack in melee, shoot at disadvantage, or bonus action disengage.
Our rogue does it with bonus action hide as a halfling and hides behind my medium sized character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I personnally wouldn't allow this, just because you go behind someone or a wall to hide, doesn't mean your enemies have no clue you are there, you would need to move a pop out at some other location. It may be RAW and even RAI but it's too cheesy for me.
Edit: I'm talking about hide behind bigger guy here.
I'm pretty sure it's up to the DM to decide when a player can hide so I suppose it's fine as far as RAW or RAI goes. I agree though that it's a little too silly for my taste. Then again, I think rogues could use better options for gaining advantage so maybe allowing things like this wouldn't be so bad.
the issue with that, is if it's not allowed at some points then your actually scrapping a racial feature from the lightfoot halfling. But it does say that its an attempt, so it could be fairly high 15+ DC if they're being too cheesy about hiding behind one spot.
You're not scrapping it, you're just making the situation less absurd. You can probably hide behind something a person if whatever you're hiding from doesn't know you're there. If whatever you're hiding from already knows you're there, trying to hide behind a person would be a pretty impossible task. That's just one DMs opinion though and the rules around hiding are pretty vague.
I agree the halfling could hide behind a larger creature and can't be targeted while hiden. But, I would rule you loose your hiden status when you pop out to shoot. Your enemy is aware you are there even if they can't see you.
Here's a snipet of the PHB on hiding in combat:
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.
I'd rule the same way if a rogue simply BA hide behind a wall and pop back up at the same place for a ranged attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Freedom without Laws is Anarchy... Laws without Freedom is Tyranny!
I think the aim is pointless and if you think its overpowered then you are pretty wrong, in short a rogue can get advantage on a ranged attack roll by ducking behind full or half cover and using there cunning action to hide, then due to unseen attacker they get advantage OR a rogue with darkvision can back up beyond how far another creature can see granting unseen attacker (I abused the shit out of this in dungeon on the mad mage as a drow fighter using sharp shooter backing up to 65+ feet and shooting with advantage) for the sole fact that aim reduces movement to 0 witch leave the rogue vulnerable to attacks so it only make aim useful in a area with no cover what so ever so you can get sneak attack on creatures that don't have a one of your friends attacking it already.
Also OP you can get advantage on your bonus action melee attacks so long as you were hidden, each round adds up to SIX seconds, that is EVERYONES turns in one round takes place in SIX seconds, your two attacks happen in less than a span of second or two but why you would want to use two weapon fighting on a rogue is beyond me as you miss out on using your cunning action for a patathic flat 1d6. If you were a fighter with fighting style for it and the dual welder feat the extra full attack is really nice.
I think the aim is pointless and if you think its overpowered then you are pretty wrong, in short a rogue can get advantage on a ranged attack roll by ducking behind full or half cover and using there cunning action to hide, then due to unseen attacker they get advantage OR a rogue with darkvision can back up beyond how far another creature can see granting unseen attacker (I abused the shit out of this in dungeon on the mad mage as a drow fighter using sharp shooter backing up to 65+ feet and shooting with advantage) for the sole fact that aim reduces movement to 0 witch leave the rogue vulnerable to attacks so it only make aim useful in a area with no cover what so ever so you can get sneak attack on creatures that don't have a one of your friends attacking it already.
Also OP you can get advantage on your bonus action melee attacks so long as you were hidden, each round adds up to SIX seconds, that is EVERYONES turns in one round takes place in SIX seconds, your two attacks happen in less than a span of second or two but why you would want to use two weapon fighting on a rogue is beyond me as you miss out on using your cunning action for a patathic flat 1d6. If you were a fighter with fighting style for it and the dual welder feat the extra full attack is really nice.
The bonus action from Two-weapon fighting would only ever be used if your first attack missed. That is to ensure you get your sneak attack damage in. If you hit, you can still disengage. Getting advantage from hide on every round is subject to a DM that allows it. You aren't unseen when you pop out from your cover so unless your DM allows you to hide when everyone knows exactly where you are, you're not getting advantage. I've never been on a table that would give hide this easily but apparently it does happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey everyone.
I have been fairly critical of the rogue on these forums. It's not because I don't like the class, truth is I love the rogue. I have been critical because from a mathematical perspective dual wielding is far and away the best way to play the rogue unless you can gain advantage in some way consistently. Gaining advantage provides the ranged rogue and the single handed rogue a way to close the gap.
Enter the new UA class variants. For those that haven't read it yet, you can find it here. Among a ton of things, you'll find a new optional feature called Cunning Action: Aim. Here is the text:
I haven't given it a ton of thought yet, but I did want to encourage people to check it out and start a discussion around it. It is seemingly a fantastic solution with excellent trade-offs.
My main concern is Elven Accuracy. With such an easy way to gain advantage, this feat might be too strong. I'm also not sure how multiclassing might work with this but UA material isn't designed with that in mind anyway. If it did become official, there may be some troublesome interactions with other classes. I think it would be fine but that's just my first thought.
What do you think?
From my very own point of view, I'm not a big fan of this new feature.
Ok so you can trade your mobility to get a Sneak Attack. As long as you don't move, you can aim. Say hello to the "Tower Defense" Aarakocra dip in fighter to get Archery + Sharpshooter for the first ASI.
What I don't like, is that the rogue doesn't need to rely on his friends or situations to get the Sneak Attack. I fear it can be easier to just stay on a pill of rocks and aim every turns instead of playing.
I would give Aim to a roguish archetype, such as Assassin, instead of every rogues.
___________________________-
Ok so, there is a funny way to use Aim, but it really depends on the DM to work.
Take Shapeshooter or Crossbow Expert,
Take a Net (with proficiency, BG or 1lvl in fighter), the feat will make you able to take off the disadvantage,
Aim, get the advantage, throw the Net.
So, rules of Sneak Attack says that you have to hit with a range weapon (or finesse) to trigger your D6s. It doesn't NECESSARILY say that you have to deal damage! If your DM agrees, you could Sneak Attack with a net. I hope you can describe how your opponent takes damages, it could be fun.
As a DM, I would allow it only if the player describe how the poor creature takes D6s. For the lulz.
Take 2 Nets with you and a ally who can repair them, it can be very fun for a couple of fights. You don't really need Aim for that, but it surely helps a lot.
Well you also have to trade your bonus action. That means you can't use cunning action or a bonus action attack. It's a pretty big trade off. If I were doing two weapon fighting rogue I'd never use it unless I wouldn't otherwise get sneak attack. For a ranged rogue, you'd probably always use it. For a rogue with one weapon, you'd probably use it fairly often. I thinks it's fantastic.
As for your Aarakorcra fighter dip, you'd be better off taking 5 levels in fighter and just use your normal attacks. That'd open up your bonus action and your movement and mathematically it would basically be the same thing as 4 levels and using aim. In fact, you'd actually do a little more damage on average. I don't see this as a good argument against it. If anything, it illustrates why it's good. Using one attack with advantage is very close to having two attacks.
I also think that your net sneak attack is a pretty ridiculous and unintended. Kudos for finding something funny though.
For a rogue with one weapon... yeah, why not, if you use it to finish the last monster and you don't have any ally around. From my point of view, a rogue who's not out of your range will play hit'n'run, trading its mobility against a Sneak Attack is easy to punish.
In fact, you're right if the rogue has always the good situation that can help him to Sneak Attack. The Tower Defense Aarakocra needs Aim for its SN if it shoot stuff who are not close to one of its ally.
What I don't like with Aim is that it doesn't encourage the team-play.
ex:
Random Paladin without Aim allowed: "I will move close to this foe to distract it so your rogue can do its job."
Random Paladin with Aim allowed: "AIM NOOB"
Even if it's one of its main characteristic, Sneak Attack should not be automatic, the Rogue should not be able to play alone, even by dropping its mobility to peanuts.
But again, it's my own point of view. The point of view of a guy who wants to SN with a net.
At the current point with my group, we don't plan to use aim because we're currently having an issue of our group's rogues always going ranged over melee. Which started to happen when they started to see that, advantage w/ range > two attacks @ melee. Which okay, that's one was of looking at it was because they value the safety of ranged over the little bit of damage they'd gain being melee.
If they would've added a variant rule that helps melee then I don't think this would've been such an outcry. One rule that my group is going to try out is a form of backstab mechanic, where once per turn, if they land a sneak attack on a creature facing the opposite direction of them (if applicable) then they'd be able to reroll 1 and 2 once on their sneak attack damage. Currently, we haven't had a rogue in our group try this out, but thought it be a neat idea to throw out there.
My Homebrew | Background | Feats | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclass | Full List
Most Popular Homebrew: Nephilim (Aasimar-Tielfling) - Race
Newest Homebrew: Image Distortion - 1st-Level Illusion Spell
How are your ranged rogues always getting advantage? By bonus action hiding? You could make hiding more difficult. After all, if you just got shot by an arrow I'm guessing you're going to know where it came from. Someone isn't going to be able to hide from you very easily. I think the game mechanics are actually set up with bonus action hiding being somewhat difficult. In a dark forest, sure if allow it. In a well lit Hall, no way.
Also, mathematically two attacks is still better than one with advantage unless you have Elven advantage. Otherwise the odds of landing sneak attack are the same. With the melee option you can still attack once and then decide if you want to attack again or disengage (out whatever else).
Another option to make the ranged rogues life more difficult is to put enemies up in their grill. That doesn't really work against the scout but every other rogue will either have to take a feat, attack in melee, shoot at disadvantage, or bonus action disengage.
It's thematically great!
Yes, but two attacks doesn't trigger the sneak attack unless you have an ally near your opponent or you're following the swashbuckler archetype. If you have advantage, no need to hide, no need ally, you can roll your D6s.
I prefer the melee rogue because playing Hide and Sneak is pretty poor in terms of gameplay. With the Mobility feat (+10ft movement and auto-disengage on the foe you attacked even if you didn't succeed your roll) the Aim action seems useless.
It's clearly for range rogue to spam aim/shoot by staying in a safe area. But at the end, you have less to do than a Champion Fighter (who is, at least, exiting to play for crit fishing).
At the end, the Aim create an easy way to play rogue. I'm sure some people will love that, but again, they could put Aim in an archetype instead.
I disagree wholeheartedly with putting it in an archetype. Speaking solely from mathematics, it's such an amazing equalizing mechanic that has such interesting trade-offs. 100% of to the time the melee rogue either uses disengage or an attack on their bonus action. The one handed rogue just disengages. The ranged rogue always tries to hide. If she can't then it's basically a wasted bonus action most of the time. Not having the second option to deal sneak attack damage is a huge decrease in damage. This gives another option and bridges the gap in terms of damage.
I think to make it more balanced it should be a switch out not an add on. So you can take aim to replace dash, disengage or hide. That way a single melee rogue might choose to give up hide and still have the option to disengage and dash. A ranged rogue might instead give up dashing so they can still hide if they needed to move before their shot.
i play the 4th lvl high elf assassin rogue (for long bow / swords and flavor), cunning action: aim came just few days ago so i gave it a try. and yes, feat i took at lvl 4 was elven accuracy. My DM gave me 3 rounds after saying "no more aim for you". its just broken. i've been criting my sneak attacks almost every second attack. and its basicly pretty similar to hiding as your bonus action - you have an advantage anyway. im not even considering breaking this class with something else like ranger (extra d6 from hunters mark), paladin (for extra d6's from smite on top of crits + vow of enmity).
It's tricky. Ranged rogues can theoretically bonus action hide but it's DM dependent and situational. A more on demand option like Aim seems like a great addition. It's less situational but doesn't have the defensive bonus of being hidden, but it does grant advantage on the attack.
I agree that elven advantage is a major increase but let's look at the numbers.
Here are the average rolls:
Not a huge increase from normal advantage to elven accuracy. There is a sizable increase in critical chance though.
So giving up all your movement and your bonus action gains you +3.5 average on rolls and a ~5% critical hit chance increase. With elven accuracy that increases by 1.5 and 4% respectively. I actually think that's a pretty decent trade-off. Elven Accuracy does increase the effectiveness by a decent amount but I think it's comparable to a GWM or Sharpshooter in terms of feat strength.
I think a good comparison is Barbarian. They can't use elven accuracy but they can use GWM and reckless attack for on demand advantage. They get two attacks and crit fishing is extra effective because of brutal critical. The feat increases the damage output by a fair amount, just like Elven accuracy does with the aiming rogue. The rogue can use sharpshooter however they can only do that once per turn and honestly the -5 to hit is probably not worth it beyond tier 1 due to the importance of hitting on your one attack because of sneak attack. Sharpshooter + crossbow expert with Elven accuracy might be too good but that's 3 feats so I'm honestly fine with it.
"Cunning Aim" seems like a devious trap that can be exploited by a clever DM.
All it takes is a rogue in a location with no obvious places to "Hide", and a monster or trap that is capable of substantial threat.
The rogue thinks, "Hmm...maybe I'll use that Cunning Aim", and decides to try and take out a target, thereby reducing their movement to zero.
Suddenly, a trap is triggered, and the rogue is no longer safely out of range.
Or, the monster with multi-attack now has that pesky rogue within their striking distance...sure, one "Evasion" might limit the damage of the first attack...but the rest?
"Cunning Aim" is certainly a welcome addition to land a solid attack...but it is also a temptation that can leave a rogue vulnerable.
And if a player is fond of using it VERY frequently...well, that's just too easy then.
Our rogue does it with bonus action hide as a halfling and hides behind my medium sized character.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I personnally wouldn't allow this, just because you go behind someone or a wall to hide, doesn't mean your enemies have no clue you are there, you would need to move a pop out at some other location. It may be RAW and even RAI but it's too cheesy for me.
Edit: I'm talking about hide behind bigger guy here.
Freedom without Laws is Anarchy... Laws without Freedom is Tyranny!
I'm pretty sure it's up to the DM to decide when a player can hide so I suppose it's fine as far as RAW or RAI goes. I agree though that it's a little too silly for my taste. Then again, I think rogues could use better options for gaining advantage so maybe allowing things like this wouldn't be so bad.
the issue with that, is if it's not allowed at some points then your actually scrapping a racial feature from the lightfoot halfling. But it does say that its an attempt, so it could be fairly high 15+ DC if they're being too cheesy about hiding behind one spot.
My Homebrew | Background | Feats | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclass | Full List
Most Popular Homebrew: Nephilim (Aasimar-Tielfling) - Race
Newest Homebrew: Image Distortion - 1st-Level Illusion Spell
You're not scrapping it, you're just making the situation less absurd. You can probably hide behind something a person if whatever you're hiding from doesn't know you're there. If whatever you're hiding from already knows you're there, trying to hide behind a person would be a pretty impossible task. That's just one DMs opinion though and the rules around hiding are pretty vague.
I agree the halfling could hide behind a larger creature and can't be targeted while hiden. But, I would rule you loose your hiden status when you pop out to shoot. Your enemy is aware you are there even if they can't see you.
Here's a snipet of the PHB on hiding in combat:
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.
I'd rule the same way if a rogue simply BA hide behind a wall and pop back up at the same place for a ranged attack.
Freedom without Laws is Anarchy... Laws without Freedom is Tyranny!
I think the aim is pointless and if you think its overpowered then you are pretty wrong, in short a rogue can get advantage on a ranged attack roll by ducking behind full or half cover and using there cunning action to hide, then due to unseen attacker they get advantage OR a rogue with darkvision can back up beyond how far another creature can see granting unseen attacker (I abused the shit out of this in dungeon on the mad mage as a drow fighter using sharp shooter backing up to 65+ feet and shooting with advantage) for the sole fact that aim reduces movement to 0 witch leave the rogue vulnerable to attacks so it only make aim useful in a area with no cover what so ever so you can get sneak attack on creatures that don't have a one of your friends attacking it already.
Also OP you can get advantage on your bonus action melee attacks so long as you were hidden, each round adds up to SIX seconds, that is EVERYONES turns in one round takes place in SIX seconds, your two attacks happen in less than a span of second or two but why you would want to use two weapon fighting on a rogue is beyond me as you miss out on using your cunning action for a patathic flat 1d6. If you were a fighter with fighting style for it and the dual welder feat the extra full attack is really nice.
The bonus action from Two-weapon fighting would only ever be used if your first attack missed. That is to ensure you get your sneak attack damage in. If you hit, you can still disengage. Getting advantage from hide on every round is subject to a DM that allows it. You aren't unseen when you pop out from your cover so unless your DM allows you to hide when everyone knows exactly where you are, you're not getting advantage. I've never been on a table that would give hide this easily but apparently it does happen.