Can a character become hidden without using the hide action?

Uller said:

Character A is chasing B down a street and B ducks into an ally using his full movement. A can't see B. There is sufficient noise from the crowd on the street and A's own running feet that A can't hear B. From the point A lost sight of B A has no idea what B did after that (though A can guess).

The way I've always run it is no. B is not hidden.

Click to expand...

At this point in time, B is hidden. A does know that B exists and their general location ("in the alley somewhere") since A saw B run into the alley, but they don't know an exact location and generally cannot target B with spells or weapons. That's what hidden means.

If someone can't see you or hear you or smell you or sense you or otherwise know where you are then you are hidden from them.

When A runs into the alley after B, B is no longer hidden, unless they have taken some steps to remain hidden. For example, by moving behind some trash and staying quiet and still. For example, by running out the other end of the alley. For example, by disguising themself as someone else.

To become hidden, you need to take steps to stop your target seeing, hearing, smelling or otherwise detecting you. You have to get into concealment (which includes invisibility), make no noise, mask your scent, be still or move stealthily, cover your tracks, etc. In game terms, this is usually modeled by a DEX\Stealth roll.

In combat, you take the Hide Action to do this. Out of combat, you just tell the GM, "My character hides behind some trash and makes herself as quiet and still as she can."

Ok, here’s how I run it:

- The Search Action allows a creature to attempt to detect a Hidden creature or object. A creature that is not using the Search Action might still detect a Hidden creature or object if the DC to find it is lower than its passive Wisdom (Perception).
- Not all unseen objects are actually Hidden. An object that is not hidden does not require a Search Action to find - if a creature looks in the place where the object is, that creature can see the object.
- The Hide Action allows a creature to become Hidden. That creature makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and the result of that check becomes the DC for any Wisdom (Perception) checks made to Search for it or find it with passive Wisdom (Perception).
- Normally, being unseen is a prerequisite that a creature must meet in order to take the Hide Action, though there are some exceptions, such as wood elves, who can take the Hide Action when lightly obscured by natural phenomena, whether they are unseen or not.
- Being invisible makes a creature impossible to see. This means it always meets the prerequisites to use the Hide Action. However, until an invisible creature takes the Hide Action, it is not automatically Hidden.
-This means the Search Action is not required to detect an invisible creature that is not Hidden. However, a creature attempting to detect an invisible but not Hidden creature won’t be able to do so simply by looking where the invisible creature is. It may need to attempt to find the invisible creature another way, such as by listening for sounds it makes.
- As with any action with an uncertain outcome, the DM adjudicates the results, usually by means of one or more checks. In this case, a Wisdom (Perception) vs. Dexterity (Stealth) contest might be appropriate.

Hiya!

I really don't know how to go into this without coming across as some sort of...well, "meanie-poo". So I'll just write out how it would happen in my game and you can draw your own conclusion.

Uller said:

Example...

Character A is chasing B down a street and B ducks into an ally using his full movement. A can't see B. There is sufficient noise from the crowd on the street and A's own running feet that A can't hear B. From the point A lost sight of B A has no idea what B did after that (though A can guess).

Click to expand...

DM: "Ok. Aie, you see Bee running down the street, he turns a corner, what do you do?"
Aie: "I keep running until I get to the corner"
DM: "The corner turns out to be an ally way. Covered in boxes, crates, barrels, garbage and other refuse. You could make your way down it, but you'd have to be careful to not trip or slip on something".
Aie: "Do I see Bee anywhere?"

...Now we go into the 'hide' and 'non-hidden' thing.

As it took 'a bit' (call it a round) for Aie to run down the street to the corner, that would have given Bee time to quickly try and obfuscate himself. So, a Stealth roll from Bee, with a Perception check from Aie (if Aie just stands at the corner and doesn't go down the ally), or an Investigation check from Aie (if he decides to move down the ally).

That's how "Hide" should work, imho, and how it works in my game. "Hide" isn't just some word a player can blurt out to somehow 'automatically get to roll some dice'. You don't "Hide", and then describe it; you describe what you are doing and the DM decides if there is a rule that fits (e.g., "Hide", "Stealth", "Perception", "Investigation", etc).

I see so-o many players/DM's nowadays who, for lack of a better way to put it, "role-play backwards". They look for a rule for something to do...as opposed to doing something and then finding a rule. Oh, no! He's chasing me! I need to use Athletics and Hide. [rolls dice]...ok, I got 19 for jumping over the knocked over cart, and I got a 22 for my Hide. Does he beat my rolls?"...that sort of mindset seems to be the norm now. Back in my day (...ugh!...dating myself again!...) it was "Oh, no! He's chasing me! I'll try and jump over the overturned cart and hide!", and the DM would then see what rules (if any) would be used.

Anyway, that's my 2¢.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

pming said:

I see so-o many players/DM's nowadays who, for lack of a better way to put it, "role-play backwards". They look for a rule for something to do...as opposed to doing something and then finding a rule.

Click to expand...

I will confess I do this. I try to make a conscious effort not to and I remind my players frequently that they can just narrate what they do and I'll find the rules that make it happen. But some players enjoy playing through the rules as an interface to the game. It's like their controller...invoke a certain sequence of rules to make something happen and they expect the result to be reasonably predictable and that's not unreasonable, I think.

I go off the rails as DM because I'm trying to run so many things and trying to keep them all within the same rules the PCs must follow. So sometimes I let myself get a little too bogged down by them.

As for the subject at hand...i think one area where I am going awry is applying in combat rules to out of combat. I tend to look at what happens just before combat starts as a sort of "round 0". In the witches example I imagine the witches are just hanging out doing whatever it is witches do on their down time...boiling eye balls and exchanging potion recipes when they hear someone fidgetting with their door. They knew the PCs were around (because of a hag's eye that the PCs eventually disposed of). So someone coming in through their locked door was likely a danger. So I gave them a round to act before the door opened.

That seems fair. Now...it strikes me that as some folks play the game (invisibility is not stealth...which is how I tended to do it but am now questioning)...a character becoming invisible is not hidden and automatically detected but one ducking behind a desk and "hiding" gets a stealth check to avoid detection. That strikes me as wrong in a narrative sense. And as you implied...rules should support narrative.

Ron and Harry are snooping in Snape's office. They hear someone opening the door and only have a moment to react. Ron ducks under the desk. Harry activates his invisibility cloak. Ron gets a stealth check and Harry doesn't because Ron used the hide action and Harry used his action to become invisible. So when Snape enters the room he automatically knows someone is there because of Harry? Harry would have been better off hiding first then on his next turn activating hus cloak. That seems off because Harry and Ron both effectively did the same thing from a narrative POV...they made themselves difficult to detect.

I think what you and others have touched on makes sense. The entire universe and everything in it is initially hidden. Those things revealed by the senses become unhidden automatically. When it is unclear if a character senses something a stealth vs passive perception or a perception check is called for.

If a character is not hidden and wishes to become hidden he must create circumstances that make hiding possible and then actively try to hide or he must sufficiently break contact so that hiding becomes automatic (get out of sight and hearing range and move away).

Hiya!

You were doing so well, then...

Uller said:

I think what you and others have touched on makes sense. The entire universe and everything in it is initially hidden. Those things revealed by the senses become unhidden automatically. When it is unclear if a character senses something a stealth vs passive perception or a perception check is called for.

If a character is not hidden and wishes to become hidden he must create circumstances that make hiding possible and then actively try to hide or he must sufficiently break contact so that hiding becomes automatic (get out of sight and hearing range and move away).

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Ok. Look at it this way. Pretend that the "Hidden" rules and things that pertain to it do not exist at all. Pretend that they wrote 5e, printed and shipped it. And nowhere in it does it have any "Hide" or "Hidden" game mechanics. Period. As in, it's never mentioned as a "thing" that can be 'done' (like "Attack", "Move", etc).

Now how would you handle it? With the Harry/Ron example, what would you do? What would you rule, as a DM? Me? I'd probably have Ron make a Stealth or maybe a combined Dex/Wis check or something. Harry? I'd probably give Snape a Perception check vs some DC...probably something really high, like 25. Why so high? Because "Invisibility" is magic. If it was just as easy to sneak/hide/avoid detection by normal means, nobody would have developed 'invisibility'. So, having an Invisibility Cloak should be an amazing thing.

I did know one player who was pretty much liked the unlimited choices thing of RPG's. But when it came to performing those choices, he wanted rules. He wanted to know that in Situation A, his character has a 64% chance and in Situation B, his character has a 63% chance. That 1%, to him, "made a difference". Of course, is "ultimate fantasy RPG" was Rolemaster, so that tells you something. The point is that, yes, there are some people out there who play RPG's, and who's idea of fun is using the system to dictate the narrative (and do so by fiddling with all sorts of numbers, skill combo's, etc). However, 5e, in it's most basic/core form, is not one of those 'detailed' games.

Good luck with your game, at any rate!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

pming said:

Hiya!

You were doing so well, then...

Click to expand...

I responded the same way when I hit that point, but I think that if this is how [MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION] justifies his ruling it should work out okay for him.

When I run into things like this I kind of step outside the rules and try to make a ruling based on logic. This is sometimes a dangerous thing with any game which has to vastly simplify reality. But here goes.

The hide action to me isn't really a typical action, it's more of an opportunity cost. Because you are trying to use your environment to become unseen and unheard, you don't have time to do anything else.

So when things don't fall neatly into the standard pattern, I ask a question. What was the creature doing before they were possibly detected. After all you are for all practical purposes hidden from me, I cannot see you, I do not know where you are yet you are not making an effort to hide.

Uller said:

A PC came to a locked door. Behind it were some witches. The PC started picking the lock. The witches heard this and all cast invisibility. But they didn't have time to also "hide". But once the door opened I didn't see any reason the party would know the location of invisible witches that didn't act yet. So I had the witches roll a stealth check. Any PCs whose passive perception was lower than the check was surprised. Any who was not surprised knew something was there but not exactly where.

Click to expand...

In this case I would say the witches are hidden until their turn. The PCs may know there's something in the room but there's no reason to know exactly where they are. I might still roll stealth vs passive perception to emulate the witches trying to remain still, but it's situational. Is it full daylight outside and is the sun now shining in on a dusty room where there might be an outline of a figure? Did I envision a creaky floor, or perhaps a straw-covered floor that might give away position because of the footprints in the straw.

Uller said:

2). I mentioned in another thread I ran a solo game for my son's paladin. He figured out he was going against a medusa and when he got to its lair he diverted his eyes and burst in to attack it. I let him know where it was and attack w/ disadv. He beat it in init...so it hadn't acted yet. This just didn't feel right. In hindsight I should have said he could close his eyes but then the medusa would start out hidden. Or he could take the search action to try to locate the medusa through hearing. Or he could try just not looking right at it and that would mean he could locate it automatically but would have to save against its gaze but with adv (and his attacks would still be at disadv and its would be at adv).

Click to expand...

If the medusa is making a significant amount of noise, if it is not casting a shadow, I see no reason the PC would have known where they were.

On the other hand if A is chasing B and B goes around a corner, is B running full out by dashing? If so, A rounds the corner and probably sees B running down the street. Even if he doesn't see B running down the street, he may see the commotion of B pushing people aside or accidentally knocking things over, even people staring at the guy who just ran by.

pming said:

Hiya!

You were doing so well, then...





Hmmm. Ok. Look at it this way. Pretend that the "Hidden" rules and things that pertain to it do not exist at all. Pretend that they wrote 5e, printed and shipped it. And nowhere in it does it have any "Hide" or "Hidden" game mechanics. Period. As in, it's never mentioned as a "thing" that can be 'done' (like "Attack", "Move", etc).

Now how would you handle it? With the Harry/Ron example, what would you do? What would you rule, as a DM? Me? I'd probably have Ron make a Stealth or maybe a combined Dex/Wis check or something. Harry? I'd probably give Snape a Perception check vs some DC...probably something really high, like 25. Why so high? Because "Invisibility" is magic. If it was just as easy to sneak/hide/avoid detection by normal means, nobody would have developed 'invisibility'. So, having an Invisibility Cloak should be an amazing thing.

I did know one player who was pretty much liked the unlimited choices thing of RPG's. But when it came to performing those choices, he wanted rules. He wanted to know that in Situation A, his character has a 64% chance and in Situation B, his character has a 63% chance. That 1%, to him, "made a difference". Of course, is "ultimate fantasy RPG" was Rolemaster, so that tells you something. The point is that, yes, there are some people out there who play RPG's, and who's idea of fun is using the system to dictate the narrative (and do so by fiddling with all sorts of numbers, skill combo's, etc). However, 5e, in it's most basic/core form, is not one of those 'detailed' games.

Good luck with your game, at any rate!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Click to expand...

pming said:

Hiya!

You were doing so well, then...

Click to expand...

I'm not at all clear what in those two paragraphs you think disagree with anything you said or are untrue. Neither paragraph mentions any specific rules and both are intended to speak from a narrative sense.





Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Uller said:

I'm not at all clear what in those two paragraphs you think disagree with anything you said or are untrue. Neither paragraph mentions any specific rules and both are intended to speak from a narrative sense.





Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

For me - and this might have been what Paul meant - those last two paragraphs look like your trying to create a house rule in an effort to systemize the world rather than just handling each situation as it comes up on its own terms. Essentially, you're swapping out how the books codify this for a different codification, and you'll be left with the same core problem for every situation that doesn't fit neatly into your rule.

Hiya!
[MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION], looking at what both [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] said, they pretty much got it. What you seem to be wanting to do is create a different circumstantial 'absolute' to cover when/if a character can Hide or needs to use Stealth, Perception, etc. What I'm trying to say is...there is no spoon.

Actually, that may be a good way to describe it. In The Matrix, when Neo is talking to the other 'special individuals' and sees that bald kid bending a spoon. Neo is trying to fit a "rule" into how a spoon can bend without touching it. He's looking at it from different angles..."if A, then would it be possible?", "No. If B, then would it be possible?", etc etc. Then the bald kid informs him that it's simple because there is no spoon in the first place.

Think of the "Hide" 'action' as the spoon. You can come up with all manner of situations where Hide will/won't "work". But in doing so you are missing the point; there is no "hide" in the first place. The PC's and NPC's in the game world don't "know the special game rules" (e.g, are aware of the matrix), so they have no way of actually "using Hide" in any situation. All they know is that if they are being chased, they can jump into a closet and close the door...and hope the person chasing them just sees a door and not a potential hiding spot.

That's what I mean when I say "playing backwards". The PC's and NPC's in your world will do stuff according to how they see the world. They don't do stuff according to "the rules", per se. So when a player chases a thief down a street, and the thief darts down an ally...and the PC gets to the ally, I (as DM) wouldn't say "Make a Perception check. ... You did it. He's hiding under an old sheet of canvas". That would be "using the rules first". The 'matrix' doesn't just suddenly make itself known to the PC so that he can suddenly 'see that there is no spoon'. I would (as DM) say "You see an ally way filled with junk, wood, barrels, crates, canvas sheets crumpled and draped over trade boxes, and a small path you could travel down, carefully, roughly in the center of everything". (e.g., "You see a spoon").

Now, what I *think* you are trying to say is that you want some sort of "basic criteria" that would constitute a PC/NPC being granted the "Hidden" moniker in order to deal with other game-rules that specifically say "...unless Hidden", or "...can not be Hidden from", in order to be able to adjudicate "game rule stuff". I get that. But as Satyrn said above, you seem to just be substituting one criteria for another, which won't solve anything (e.g, "You see a spork").

I think your best bet is to find a way to look at the rules for Hidden as they were, IMHO, "intended"; as a base guideline situation so that the DM can make a case by case ruling as to if the Hide/Hidden moniker can or should be used. I don't think Hide or Stealth or any of the frequently touted "mistakes/errors" for them are mistakes or errors (re: I think they are 'vague' by design). I think it is DM's and Players wanting (or being used to) a simple 'check box' to determine if a rule applies. In an RPG, the best thing about them is that, while printed on paper and costing not a few sheckles, they are still just "spoons". The DM and Players (not PC's) are unplugged from the matrix and can see a supposed 'rule' as something that isn't immutable; rules are easily bent or broken...if you know what you are looking at.

Bottom Line: Try and remove as many "absolutes" from your mind and your Players minds when running a session. EVERYTHING can be ignored, modified, or used...on a case by case basis. Once everyone at the table realizes that if they play "by using their imagining of the game world" to make decisions, as opposed to "using the game rules" to make decisions, well, 'the matrix is lifted', and everyone can just enjoy the story, setting, and emotion.

^_^

Paul L. Ming