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 think the "In combat" portion of that description is important. To keep things simple, rather than have facing rules, WotC decided that in a combat situation, PCs and NPCs are effectively swirling around, checking over their shoulder and otherwise working to maintain visual awareness of their surroundings. The note on being able to stay hidden as you approach a "distracted" creature is with regards to this existing combat situation and granting advantage on an attack in combat because the player has maintained the "hidden" condition, despite being out in the open.
Outside of combat I think it's perfectly reasonable that a PC might watch some guards pass them then roll a stealth check to follow in step behind them without being caught immediately. They're not in combat so the note of most creatures staying alert for signs of danger all around doesn't apply. Of course, the DM might decide if circumstances make the guards turn around or continue.
The other part is the constant use of the word "Hidden". In this setting the DM is allowing players to maintain the "Hidden" property, despite being out in the open. The use of the word "Hidden" might confuse us but its just the name of the property and state gained by successfully sneaking. WotC simply didn't bother having a separate "Hidden" and "Sneaking" condition.
In this particular case we have the circumstance of the warlock/paladin entering combat AND the NPC Bugbears being distracted by the dwarf. I believe there are two ways to approach this. 1. The DM rules, at their discretion, that combat doesn't begin until the warlock/paladin makes their attack. This means the rules of creatures staying alert doesn't apply and if the DM notes the setting as the Bugbears looking away then the warlock/paladin should be able to approach and maintain the "Hidden" condition with a stealth check to sneak without being heard. 2. The DM rules that combat has begun with the warlock/paladin's decision to move and attack. The DM then rules, at their discretion, if the Bugbears are distracted enough for the warlock/paladin to maintain the "Hidden" condition with a stealth check to sneakily approach without being heard.
If the sneak check is successful then the players likely have a surprise round and the warlock/paladin likely has advantage on their attack. If the sneak check is unsuccessful then the DM might still rule that the players have a surprise round, just not advantage on attack since the warlock/paladin wasn't able to successfully sneak.
We see some of the same general work with ambushes from hiding. If the ambushers successfully hide then fire arrows at the party from cover, they have both a surprise round and advantage on attacks If the ambushers successfully hide then charge out to attack, they have a surprise round but no advantage on attacks (they're no longer hidden) If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they fire arrows at the party from cover, there's no surprise round but any other ambushers remaining hidden have advantage on their attack. If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they charge out to attack, they have neither a surprise round nor advantage on attacks.
I think this last post by ACEspinz gets it just about right. Note that in his "two ways to approach this", both of them required a second stealth roll. You really need that second roll in this case. The hiding simply gives you the opportunity to sneak, if desired.
Quick nitpick -- There is no "surprise round" in 5e, but you can gain certain benefits by surprising your enemy to begin combat.
If the sneak check is successful then the players likely have a surprise round and the warlock/paladin likely has advantage on their attack. If the sneak check is unsuccessful then the DM might still rule that the players have a surprise round, just not advantage on attack since the warlock/paladin wasn't able to successfully sneak.
I think it's actually better if the DM rules no surprise and no advantage on the failure there. This is to differentiate from a similar scenario where the player jumps out of hiding and quickly attacks, as seen in one of his points here:
We see some of the same general work with ambushes from hiding. If the ambushers successfully hide then fire arrows at the party from cover, they have both a surprise round and advantage on attacks If the ambushers successfully hide then charge out to attack, they have a surprise round but no advantage on attacks (they're no longer hidden) If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they fire arrows at the party from cover, there's no surprise round but any other ambushers remaining hidden have advantage on their attack. If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they charge out to attack, they have neither a surprise round nor advantage on attacks.
I mostly agree with these outcomes. Notice that hidden but then charging to attack should yield surprise but no advantage, but above it was suggested that this should also be the outcome in the OP where instead of charging, the hidden creature attempted to slowly sneak up behind and failed. There should be a difference, otherwise why would we ever charge in if there is no consequence to failing the sneak? So, imo:
Hidden and failed sneak = no surprise, no advantage
Hidden and charging in = surprise, no advantage
Hidden and successful sneak = surprise and advantage
The third scenario above is a little tricky. The idea that one ambusher fails to hide but the other ones are still hidden should be true. But typically if a party is setting up an ambush in advance, some sort of group check is made to see if the entire group succeeds or fails together in their attempt to hide. Especially if a group of identical monsters are trying to ambush the PCs it's often just done as a single roll on their stealth as a group to hide.
But then that brings up another point that many argue about. What if the monsters all have one stealth score and PCs have different perception such that only some PCs discover the hidden enemies. Are the enemies still hidden vs SOME opponents? I'm not going to bother to dig around for an exact quote here but I am pretty confident that the ruling on that is no, once a hidden creature is discovered, they are no longer hidden -- instantly all enemies are aware of their position.
Anyways, the important thing is to require that second stealth roll. The PC is attempting to do something difficult. Even though it's a cool and creative idea and we REALLY want the character to be able to do it, we shouldn't give that away for free just because it would be cool imo.
To beat a dead horse, here's a quick real life example. Two roommates live in a house. One is home when he normally wouldn't be and is upstairs in the bedroom. The roommate comes home, assumes the house is empty and opens the refrigerator looking for something to eat, her back is to the room. The roommate in the bedroom is unseen. If the bedroom TV is blaring or the upstairs toilet flushes, etc, then she knows someone is home. No surprise, no advantage. If instead he tiptoes around the bedroom quietly then he rolls a stealth check. If she cannot hear him then he is now unseen and unheard -- he is hidden. But now, he decides that he wants to tiptoe down the stairs and 20 feet across the living room and the kitchen to try to surprise her by tapping her on the shoulder while remaining unseen and unheard. And this should be . . . automatic? No, obviously that doesn't make sense. She might randomly turn her head and see him. She might hear his footsteps or his armor clanking. She might notice a shadow or a reflection or just sense that someone is behind her. Or maybe not. That's why we roll the second check. Remaining upstairs in the bedroom is an auto-success until you come out of hiding. But all of that additional stuff? That's not free. Now, if instead he remained at the bottom of the stairs, popped his head around a corner and threw a nerf football at her back? Surprise and advantage.
I think this last post by ACEspinz gets it just about right. Note that in his "two ways to approach this", both of them required a second stealth roll. You really need that second roll in this case. The hiding simply gives you the opportunity to sneak, if desired.
Quick nitpick -- There is no "surprise round" in 5e, but you can gain certain benefits by surprising your enemy to begin combat.
If the sneak check is successful then the players likely have a surprise round and the warlock/paladin likely has advantage on their attack. If the sneak check is unsuccessful then the DM might still rule that the players have a surprise round, just not advantage on attack since the warlock/paladin wasn't able to successfully sneak.
I think it's actually better if the DM rules no surprise and no advantage on the failure there. This is to differentiate from a similar scenario where the player jumps out of hiding and quickly attacks, as seen in one of his points here:
We see some of the same general work with ambushes from hiding. If the ambushers successfully hide then fire arrows at the party from cover, they have both a surprise round and advantage on attacks If the ambushers successfully hide then charge out to attack, they have a surprise round but no advantage on attacks (they're no longer hidden) If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they fire arrows at the party from cover, there's no surprise round but any other ambushers remaining hidden have advantage on their attack. If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they charge out to attack, they have neither a surprise round nor advantage on attacks.
I mostly agree with these outcomes. Notice that hidden but then charging to attack should yield surprise but no advantage, but above it was suggested that this should also be the outcome in the OP where instead of charging, the hidden creature attempted to slowly sneak up behind and failed. There should be a difference, otherwise why would we ever charge in if there is no consequence to failing the sneak? So, imo:
Hidden and failed sneak = no surprise, no advantage
Hidden and charging in = surprise, no advantage
Hidden and successful sneak = surprise and advantage
The third scenario above is a little tricky. The idea that one ambusher fails to hide but the other ones are still hidden should be true. But typically if a party is setting up an ambush in advance, some sort of group check is made to see if the entire group succeeds or fails together in their attempt to hide. Especially if a group of identical monsters are trying to ambush the PCs it's often just done as a single roll on their stealth as a group to hide.
I'm mostly giving examples. But I did note that surprise would be at the DM's discretion (which is always the ruling on surprise). It's also noted in the rules that it's entirely the DM's discretion if a sneaking approach to the opponents is even possible.
If I were to try and sell surprise to my DM because I'm attempting the sneak but fail it, I'd say that by attempting the sneak, the player has effectively started their turn. They were already hidden and are attempting to sneak up for advantage on the melee attack as well. If the opponent spots them it prevents the sneak for advantage, but the opponent is still caught off guard by the sudden issue of combat and arguably surprised.
Sneaking from those hidden positions rather than charging is still difficult because the ambusher either needs a distraction or to sneak from a position that their approach is unlikely to be visually noticed. All things which is up to the DM to decide if its possible at all.
On the idea of the party spotting one member of the opponents and not the rest. Again, just examples. The idea being that the party is aware and not caught by surprise, nor is the ambusher they've spotted considered hidden for their attack. But in the example that only one ambusher is spotted, the others would still have the opportunity to attack with advantage from hiding or charge out and forego advantage. Either way, the spotting of one ambusher would alert the party and make them prepare for combat to avoid surprise.
In the case I outlined, the Bugbears were distracted by the Dwarf, who was feigning injury. The Warlock/Paladin came up from behind to make his attack. I made the Stealth roll because he moved twenty feet up the tunnel. Maybe I should have given advantage on the check
I'd say you did it entirely correctly. I believe a second stealth check is warranted because the act of hiding around a corner is fundamentally different from them moving up behind someone to attack, meaning each needs a separate roll. Like you say, you could have given advantage on the check to sneak up from behind (interpreting the Dwarf's performance as the Help action), but since the Warlock/Paladin was moving out into the open (although behind the bugbears), I'd rule that the distraction was really only just making it possible at all for the character to sneak up from behind without being noticed. Maybe a successful Performance check by the Dwarf against the Insight of the bugbears (I could see this being ruled as vs. passive insight or a contested skill check) would provide the Warlock/Paladin with advantage.
The other posters have described the rules application.
Rule of cool, I would let the surprise happen if the players invested in selling the distraction. Its just some bugbears, probably not the bbeg of the fight.
This. This whole setup seems like a chance to play to the characters' strengths and give them an opportunity to outwit a couple of mooks. Perfect.
Just wanted to add that when dealing with RAW it's a often good idea to ask what a rule is for; the 360º vision rule isn't for making stealth impossible, it's for simplifying combat when everybody knows they're in a fight, while smoothing out the oddities of it being turn-based. The reason we don't have facings as standard is because it means you could stab an enemy in the back while they dumbly stand there and let you, but since turns are supposed to be happening simultaneously an enemy wouldn't actually do that, they'd turn to face you (unless distracted by someone else they're fighting, or unaware that you're there).
Just because 360º is the default in combat doesn't mean it's the default out of combat, or that there can't (or shouldn't) be exceptions if you can justify why a creature isn't glancing around on high alert.
It's often a mistake to approach RAW debates from the perspective of "there must be an answer in RAW without consulting the DM", because it's the RAW itself that establishes that you must consult the DM, and regularly invites you to do so; RAW isn't an exhaustive guide on how to do everything, it's a toolkit for the DM to use. All we can do is point to the pieces and assess how completely they fit the question.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the "In combat" portion of that description is important. To keep things simple, rather than have facing rules, WotC decided that in a combat situation, PCs and NPCs are effectively swirling around, checking over their shoulder and otherwise working to maintain visual awareness of their surroundings. The note on being able to stay hidden as you approach a "distracted" creature is with regards to this existing combat situation and granting advantage on an attack in combat because the player has maintained the "hidden" condition, despite being out in the open.
Outside of combat I think it's perfectly reasonable that a PC might watch some guards pass them then roll a stealth check to follow in step behind them without being caught immediately. They're not in combat so the note of most creatures staying alert for signs of danger all around doesn't apply. Of course, the DM might decide if circumstances make the guards turn around or continue.
The other part is the constant use of the word "Hidden". In this setting the DM is allowing players to maintain the "Hidden" property, despite being out in the open. The use of the word "Hidden" might confuse us but its just the name of the property and state gained by successfully sneaking. WotC simply didn't bother having a separate "Hidden" and "Sneaking" condition.
In this particular case we have the circumstance of the warlock/paladin entering combat AND the NPC Bugbears being distracted by the dwarf. I believe there are two ways to approach this.
1. The DM rules, at their discretion, that combat doesn't begin until the warlock/paladin makes their attack. This means the rules of creatures staying alert doesn't apply and if the DM notes the setting as the Bugbears looking away then the warlock/paladin should be able to approach and maintain the "Hidden" condition with a stealth check to sneak without being heard.
2. The DM rules that combat has begun with the warlock/paladin's decision to move and attack. The DM then rules, at their discretion, if the Bugbears are distracted enough for the warlock/paladin to maintain the "Hidden" condition with a stealth check to sneakily approach without being heard.
If the sneak check is successful then the players likely have a surprise round and the warlock/paladin likely has advantage on their attack. If the sneak check is unsuccessful then the DM might still rule that the players have a surprise round, just not advantage on attack since the warlock/paladin wasn't able to successfully sneak.
We see some of the same general work with ambushes from hiding.
If the ambushers successfully hide then fire arrows at the party from cover, they have both a surprise round and advantage on attacks
If the ambushers successfully hide then charge out to attack, they have a surprise round but no advantage on attacks (they're no longer hidden)
If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they fire arrows at the party from cover, there's no surprise round but any other ambushers remaining hidden have advantage on their attack.
If one of the ambushers fails to hide and they charge out to attack, they have neither a surprise round nor advantage on attacks.
But if anyone is wondering thematically, how a distraction allows a character to retain the "Hidden" property despite being in plain sight and get advantage on attack. I refer you to Starlord distracting Ronan the Accuser so Drax and Rocket can attack with advantage, despite being very much out in the open (Then again, Drax is not without his own stealth abilities)
I think this last post by ACEspinz gets it just about right. Note that in his "two ways to approach this", both of them required a second stealth roll. You really need that second roll in this case. The hiding simply gives you the opportunity to sneak, if desired.
Quick nitpick -- There is no "surprise round" in 5e, but you can gain certain benefits by surprising your enemy to begin combat.
I think it's actually better if the DM rules no surprise and no advantage on the failure there. This is to differentiate from a similar scenario where the player jumps out of hiding and quickly attacks, as seen in one of his points here:
I mostly agree with these outcomes. Notice that hidden but then charging to attack should yield surprise but no advantage, but above it was suggested that this should also be the outcome in the OP where instead of charging, the hidden creature attempted to slowly sneak up behind and failed. There should be a difference, otherwise why would we ever charge in if there is no consequence to failing the sneak? So, imo:
Hidden and failed sneak = no surprise, no advantage
Hidden and charging in = surprise, no advantage
Hidden and successful sneak = surprise and advantage
The third scenario above is a little tricky. The idea that one ambusher fails to hide but the other ones are still hidden should be true. But typically if a party is setting up an ambush in advance, some sort of group check is made to see if the entire group succeeds or fails together in their attempt to hide. Especially if a group of identical monsters are trying to ambush the PCs it's often just done as a single roll on their stealth as a group to hide.
But then that brings up another point that many argue about. What if the monsters all have one stealth score and PCs have different perception such that only some PCs discover the hidden enemies. Are the enemies still hidden vs SOME opponents? I'm not going to bother to dig around for an exact quote here but I am pretty confident that the ruling on that is no, once a hidden creature is discovered, they are no longer hidden -- instantly all enemies are aware of their position.
Anyways, the important thing is to require that second stealth roll. The PC is attempting to do something difficult. Even though it's a cool and creative idea and we REALLY want the character to be able to do it, we shouldn't give that away for free just because it would be cool imo.
To beat a dead horse, here's a quick real life example. Two roommates live in a house. One is home when he normally wouldn't be and is upstairs in the bedroom. The roommate comes home, assumes the house is empty and opens the refrigerator looking for something to eat, her back is to the room. The roommate in the bedroom is unseen. If the bedroom TV is blaring or the upstairs toilet flushes, etc, then she knows someone is home. No surprise, no advantage. If instead he tiptoes around the bedroom quietly then he rolls a stealth check. If she cannot hear him then he is now unseen and unheard -- he is hidden. But now, he decides that he wants to tiptoe down the stairs and 20 feet across the living room and the kitchen to try to surprise her by tapping her on the shoulder while remaining unseen and unheard. And this should be . . . automatic? No, obviously that doesn't make sense. She might randomly turn her head and see him. She might hear his footsteps or his armor clanking. She might notice a shadow or a reflection or just sense that someone is behind her. Or maybe not. That's why we roll the second check. Remaining upstairs in the bedroom is an auto-success until you come out of hiding. But all of that additional stuff? That's not free. Now, if instead he remained at the bottom of the stairs, popped his head around a corner and threw a nerf football at her back? Surprise and advantage.
I'm mostly giving examples. But I did note that surprise would be at the DM's discretion (which is always the ruling on surprise). It's also noted in the rules that it's entirely the DM's discretion if a sneaking approach to the opponents is even possible.
If I were to try and sell surprise to my DM because I'm attempting the sneak but fail it, I'd say that by attempting the sneak, the player has effectively started their turn. They were already hidden and are attempting to sneak up for advantage on the melee attack as well. If the opponent spots them it prevents the sneak for advantage, but the opponent is still caught off guard by the sudden issue of combat and arguably surprised.
Sneaking from those hidden positions rather than charging is still difficult because the ambusher either needs a distraction or to sneak from a position that their approach is unlikely to be visually noticed. All things which is up to the DM to decide if its possible at all.
On the idea of the party spotting one member of the opponents and not the rest. Again, just examples. The idea being that the party is aware and not caught by surprise, nor is the ambusher they've spotted considered hidden for their attack. But in the example that only one ambusher is spotted, the others would still have the opportunity to attack with advantage from hiding or charge out and forego advantage. Either way, the spotting of one ambusher would alert the party and make them prepare for combat to avoid surprise.
I'd say you did it entirely correctly. I believe a second stealth check is warranted because the act of hiding around a corner is fundamentally different from them moving up behind someone to attack, meaning each needs a separate roll. Like you say, you could have given advantage on the check to sneak up from behind (interpreting the Dwarf's performance as the Help action), but since the Warlock/Paladin was moving out into the open (although behind the bugbears), I'd rule that the distraction was really only just making it possible at all for the character to sneak up from behind without being noticed. Maybe a successful Performance check by the Dwarf against the Insight of the bugbears (I could see this being ruled as vs. passive insight or a contested skill check) would provide the Warlock/Paladin with advantage.
Gotta be within 5 feet to help give another creature advantage on their attack by feinting 😜
This. This whole setup seems like a chance to play to the characters' strengths and give them an opportunity to outwit a couple of mooks. Perfect.
I think ACEspinz has the right of it here.
Just wanted to add that when dealing with RAW it's a often good idea to ask what a rule is for; the 360º vision rule isn't for making stealth impossible, it's for simplifying combat when everybody knows they're in a fight, while smoothing out the oddities of it being turn-based. The reason we don't have facings as standard is because it means you could stab an enemy in the back while they dumbly stand there and let you, but since turns are supposed to be happening simultaneously an enemy wouldn't actually do that, they'd turn to face you (unless distracted by someone else they're fighting, or unaware that you're there).
Just because 360º is the default in combat doesn't mean it's the default out of combat, or that there can't (or shouldn't) be exceptions if you can justify why a creature isn't glancing around on high alert.
It's often a mistake to approach RAW debates from the perspective of "there must be an answer in RAW without consulting the DM", because it's the RAW itself that establishes that you must consult the DM, and regularly invites you to do so; RAW isn't an exhaustive guide on how to do everything, it's a toolkit for the DM to use. All we can do is point to the pieces and assess how completely they fit the question.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.