as a DM, I've been recently challenged about Hide and Cover by one of my players who plays a halfling rogue. According to the rules glossary, you cannot take the Hide action when you are behind half cover; only three-quarters cover or more allow to do so. On the other side, the halfling is Naturally Stealthy and can take the Hide action to hide behind a creature larger than the halfling (which by definition provides half cover).
Does this mean that, from a mechanics point of view, the halfling is turning half coverage into a three-quarters coverage? If this is not the case - as I suppose - how to justify the fact that a halfling can hide much better behind a creature than behind any other object which provides him/her with the same level of cover (half cover)?
No it doesn't change any source of cover, what Naturally Stealthy does is allowing you to take the Hide action even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you but has otherwise no effect on cover the creature provides you.
This is a case of the "specific beats general" principle that's one of D&D's core concepts.
In general, you cannot hide behind something that only provides half cover. That's a general rule.
Halflings can hide behind a creature larger than than them. That's a more specific rule that overrides the general rule in this case. It doesn't change anything else about the situation, including what kind of cover the creature provides.
The halfling isn't turning half cover into 3/4. They have an ability that overrides the general rule, that allows them to hide in circumstances where others cannot.
The Halfling’s Naturally Stealthy trait allows you to bypass these criteria if you’re obscured by a creature at least one size larger than you. However, you still must make a Dexterity (Stealth) check as you normally would when taking the Hide action, so there’s no guarantee of success.
I totally agree and that's how I would explain it as well, i.e. a specific rule which overrides the generic rule, without changing the cover degree. Actually though, my player's point was more about the latest question in my post, i.e.
how to justify the fact that a halfling can hide much better behind a creature than behind any other object which provides him/her with the same level of cover?
Given the halfling is not turning half cover into three-quarters cover, it's legitimate for a player to expect that Naturally Stealthy also applies to similar situations, i.e. whenever the halfling is half covered (even though not by a creature). I know this is not mentioned in the handbook, but I get the point and I accept a player challenging me on this topic.
Like many other objections, I believe this one can be addressed with an "it is how it is" statement: it's still a game in the end, not reality. Maybe halflings got as used to hiding behind creatures that it is "now" easier for them to hide behind creatures than it is behind static walls or furniture. Who knows...!
Like many other objections, I believe this one can be addressed with an "it is how it is" statement: it's still a game in the end, not reality. Maybe halflings got as used to hiding behind creatures that it is "now" easier for them to hide behind creatures than it is behind static walls or furniture. Who knows...!
An in-game explanation that I like: they are good at using a creature as cover because the creature is moving. They can blend their movement with it.
The Halfling’s Naturally Stealthy trait allows you to bypass these criteria if you’re obscured by a creature at least one size larger than you. However, you still must make a Dexterity (Stealth) check as you normally would when taking the Hide action, so there’s no guarantee of success.
The SAC answer is incorrect in this case. It also fails to answer its own question.
Question: Does the Halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait allow them to hide while observed?
The correct answer is no.
For reference, the exact wording for the Naturally Stealthy trait is this:
Naturally Stealthy. You can take the Hide action even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
The deliberate use of the phrase "even when" makes it clear that this rule references back to the rules that are already written for the Hide action and adds to it. Specifically, it adds to the list of possible circumstances regarding the types of cover or obscurement required to even attempt to Hide in the first place. It absolutely does NOT alter, ignore or otherwise override the requirement that you must be out of any enemy's line of sight.
A halfling attempting to Hide behind a larger creature is a similar activity to a non-halfling attempting to Hide behind three-quarters cover -- If circumstances are appropriate for hiding, then this situation allows them to do so. But if circumstances are not appropriate for hiding (such as when an enemy is observing them doing this and never loses line of sight during that observation) then this situation does not allow them to do so.
Essentially, when a halfling attempts to Hide behind a larger creature, the rules for the Hide action go from this:
". . . you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you."
To this:
". . . you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover(or obscured by a creature that is at least one size larger than you if you are a Halfling), and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
how to justify the fact that a halfling can hide much better behind a creature than behind any other object which provides him/her with the same level of cover?
You need to talk to the player that is challenging you immediately and shut down this line of questioning. D&D is a fun silly fantasy game, it doesn't make logical sense and it doesn't need to make logical sense. If this player needs a world & game mechanics that are 100% logically consistent they should not play D&D. D&D is designed to be cinematic and fantastical not an accurate simulation of anything. Indulging these types of arguments will lead to endless bickering that disrupts the flow & fun of the game, and to the player trying to exploit the logical inconsistencies of the game e.g. peasant rail gun or unpolymorphing inside a creature, etc...
I personally would let a Halfling or any small race hide behind half cover, as long as it was something that you could realistically hide behind. Obviously, you can't hide behind a portcullis, even though it would provide some cover, but a 2-3 foot tall wall would definitely work for hiding.
I personally would let a Halfling or any small race hide behind half cover, as long as it was something that you could realistically hide behind. Obviously, you can't hide behind a portcullis, even though it would provide some cover, but a 2-3 foot tall wall would definitely work for hiding.
See this depends on your interpretation of cover. IMO it is nonsense for the same object to provide the same amount of cover to creatures of different sizes. A 3 foot tall barrel would provide half-cover to a medium-sized creature, and 3/4 cover to a small creature, and no cover to a Large or Huge creature. That's the whole reason there isn't an exhaustive list of what does / doesn't provide different amounts of cover.
Hi all,
as a DM, I've been recently challenged about Hide and Cover by one of my players who plays a halfling rogue. According to the rules glossary, you cannot take the Hide action when you are behind half cover; only three-quarters cover or more allow to do so. On the other side, the halfling is Naturally Stealthy and can take the Hide action to hide behind a creature larger than the halfling (which by definition provides half cover).
Does this mean that, from a mechanics point of view, the halfling is turning half coverage into a three-quarters coverage? If this is not the case - as I suppose - how to justify the fact that a halfling can hide much better behind a creature than behind any other object which provides him/her with the same level of cover (half cover)?
No it doesn't change any source of cover, what Naturally Stealthy does is allowing you to take the Hide action even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you but has otherwise no effect on cover the creature provides you.
Creature provides half cover, which is normally insufficient to Hide for anyone but a Halfling.
This is a case of the "specific beats general" principle that's one of D&D's core concepts.
In general, you cannot hide behind something that only provides half cover. That's a general rule.
Halflings can hide behind a creature larger than than them. That's a more specific rule that overrides the general rule in this case. It doesn't change anything else about the situation, including what kind of cover the creature provides.
pronouns: he/she/they
The halfling isn't turning half cover into 3/4. They have an ability that overrides the general rule, that allows them to hide in circumstances where others cannot.
It means mechanically they can hide behnd a larger creature. Nothing there about changing how cover works.
There's also an answer about this topic in the SAC:
Thank you all for your contributions.
I totally agree and that's how I would explain it as well, i.e. a specific rule which overrides the generic rule, without changing the cover degree. Actually though, my player's point was more about the latest question in my post, i.e.
Given the halfling is not turning half cover into three-quarters cover, it's legitimate for a player to expect that Naturally Stealthy also applies to similar situations, i.e. whenever the halfling is half covered (even though not by a creature). I know this is not mentioned in the handbook, but I get the point and I accept a player challenging me on this topic.
Like many other objections, I believe this one can be addressed with an "it is how it is" statement: it's still a game in the end, not reality. Maybe halflings got as used to hiding behind creatures that it is "now" easier for them to hide behind creatures than it is behind static walls or furniture. Who knows...!
An in-game explanation that I like: they are good at using a creature as cover because the creature is moving. They can blend their movement with it.
All we have is the Halfling's description;
The SAC answer is incorrect in this case. It also fails to answer its own question.
Question: Does the Halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait allow them to hide while observed?
The correct answer is no.
For reference, the exact wording for the Naturally Stealthy trait is this:
The deliberate use of the phrase "even when" makes it clear that this rule references back to the rules that are already written for the Hide action and adds to it. Specifically, it adds to the list of possible circumstances regarding the types of cover or obscurement required to even attempt to Hide in the first place. It absolutely does NOT alter, ignore or otherwise override the requirement that you must be out of any enemy's line of sight.
A halfling attempting to Hide behind a larger creature is a similar activity to a non-halfling attempting to Hide behind three-quarters cover -- If circumstances are appropriate for hiding, then this situation allows them to do so. But if circumstances are not appropriate for hiding (such as when an enemy is observing them doing this and never loses line of sight during that observation) then this situation does not allow them to do so.
Essentially, when a halfling attempts to Hide behind a larger creature, the rules for the Hide action go from this:
". . . you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you."
To this:
". . . you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover (or obscured by a creature that is at least one size larger than you if you are a Halfling), and you must be out of any enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.
If this was the case Naturally Sealthy would be rarely used as Halflings most often hide from enemies in sight using other creatures during combat.
The rational to me is that a Halfling is not in the enemy's line of sight when obscured by larger creature for the purposes of hiding it can do so.
At least that's how i've always run it.
You need to talk to the player that is challenging you immediately and shut down this line of questioning. D&D is a fun silly fantasy game, it doesn't make logical sense and it doesn't need to make logical sense. If this player needs a world & game mechanics that are 100% logically consistent they should not play D&D. D&D is designed to be cinematic and fantastical not an accurate simulation of anything. Indulging these types of arguments will lead to endless bickering that disrupts the flow & fun of the game, and to the player trying to exploit the logical inconsistencies of the game e.g. peasant rail gun or unpolymorphing inside a creature, etc...
I personally would let a Halfling or any small race hide behind half cover, as long as it was something that you could realistically hide behind. Obviously, you can't hide behind a portcullis, even though it would provide some cover, but a 2-3 foot tall wall would definitely work for hiding.
See this depends on your interpretation of cover. IMO it is nonsense for the same object to provide the same amount of cover to creatures of different sizes. A 3 foot tall barrel would provide half-cover to a medium-sized creature, and 3/4 cover to a small creature, and no cover to a Large or Huge creature. That's the whole reason there isn't an exhaustive list of what does / doesn't provide different amounts of cover.