D&D 5E DM Help! My rogue always spams Hide as a bonus action, and i cant target him!

Hriston said:

Yes, but not while observed directly (the way I read it).

Click to expand...

The word "though" is a problem for this interpretation.

You're being disingenuous.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

I assume that what Crawford meant was the ambiguous statement he made,

Click to expand...

I don't think the statement is (intentionally) ambiguous. I think he assumed readers would perceive that the word "though" between two claims is intended to contrast those claims, and he contrasted "can't hide while being observed" with "can hide while being observed if you have one of these two abilities which have no purpose but to allow you to transition from unhidden to hidden while being observed".

The problem is, your "ambiguity" relies on never, ever, looking at the whole claim at once. When we're talking about hiding while directly observed, you say "oh, but it could mean remaining hidden". When the word "vanish" is pointed out, you jump to "oh, but it could mean while not being observed". But we're talking about a single thing being given as an example; vanishing while being directly observed.

But... Why would you ask him to "nullify the ambiguity"? You wouldn't. You'd ask him to confirm that he intended that ambiguity, and if he said "yes, I was trying to be ambiguous there", you'd win, and if he said "no, it absolutely meant that these powers allow a character to transition from unhidden to hidden while being directly observed", you wouldn't.

And I have drawn the obvious inference that you think he'd answer the same way I think he'd answer, by confirming that there was no intended ambiguity. Conveniently, if I'm wrong, it's stunningly easy to demonstrate that I'm wrong.

Hriston said:

A better gloss would have been "become unnoticeable". I was in a hurry due to having inadvertently posted before my post was ready. I agree that what I wrote there was a little awkward. An example of that usage would be, "They slip into the crowd and vanish."

Vanishing doesn't have to be sudden. For example, many endangered species have been in the process of vanishing for years. It's basically synonymous with disappear, and I'm not denying that it's a change of state. Whereas before the halfling steps behind a larger creature and becomes hidden she appears plainly to any observer, afterwards she does not appear to observers. She has vanished.

Click to expand...

Every dictionary I've checked either states that vanishing is inherently sudden or quick (Merriam Webster, Macmillian, Oxford) or mentions that the word especially applies when the disappearance is sudden or quick (Cambridge, Free Dictionary). (Vanishing in the context of endangered species is a separate sense of the word (Merriam Webster 1b or Oxford 1.1), and so doesn't apply.)

Frankly, I'm surprised by your agreement that vanishing involves a change of state, as the concession appears to be fatal to your argument. I had thought that your entire contention was that Crawford was saying that a Halfling could remain hidden in conditions where others could not. If you agree that Crawford is referring to a Halfling becoming hidden (i.e. changing state) then there doesn't appear to be any ambiguity at all.

Are you instead trying to argue that Crawford is referring to Halflings becoming hidden when they're not "in full view"? I understand that you feel that the conjunction "though" is implying qualification rather than opposition, but if the sentence about Halflings isn't understood to be in the same context as the previous sentence where "in full view" is used explicitly, then it becomes a complete non sequitur.

Furthermore, in addition to making no sense in context, there would be no reason at all for Crawford state anywhere that Halflings can become hidden behind another creature when they're unobserved, because anyone can become hidden when not in full view even if they don't have anyone to hide behind. They simply can't remain hidden once full view is established. That's why I thought your point was that Crawford, by saying that Halflings can "vanish", somehow meant by that word that they could remain hidden. Since you agree that vanishing requires a change of state, however, I'm now completely lost as to what interpretation of Crawford's text you're arguing for and how it supports your interpretation of hiding.

To answer the OP's question, the rules for hiding are left open to DM interpretation.

You can say this about all rules really, but the hiding rules are left even more so. I know there are some people who claim there is 'the one true way' to adjudicate hiding, but I disagree. The rules are intentionally written to support different interpretations.

Some games (and some DMs) prefer a 'mash the hide button' approach. Some DMs prefer a more simulationist approach. If hiding a problem in your game, you can reign it in by changing how you interpret the rules (several options have been presented in this thread).

My own interpretation is a more simualtionist one. In short (in my games):


I'm not here to judge either interpretation, or to defend why I prefer the above interpretation. Im just stating the interpretation I use in my games.

Its just the OP has been using the 'mash the hide button' interpretation in his games, and its creating unwanted results (see the OP). Perhaps changing interpretations to the above one could work for him.

Hriston said:

A better gloss would have been "become unnoticeable". I was in a hurry due to having inadvertently posted before my post was ready. I agree that what I wrote there was a little awkward. An example of that usage would be, "They slip into the crowd and vanish."

Click to expand...

That's not an example of "remain unnoticed". Rather, it's an example of suddenly disappearing from sight. They are suddenly going from view to not in view by moving behind individuals.

Vanishing doesn't have to be sudden. For example, many endangered species have been in the process of vanishing for years. It's basically synonymous with disappear, and I'm not denying that it's a change of state. Whereas before the halfling steps behind a larger creature and becomes hidden she appears plainly to any observer, afterwards she does not appear to observers. She has vanished.

Click to expand...

No that's not true. When talking about endangered species, they are looking at it from a viewpoint of the species existing for millions of years. When talking in amounts of time of millions of years, then 100 years to extinction is not only sudden, it's VERY sudden.

IMO 5E Stealth is not ''Simulationist approach vs mash the hide button'' but more that since they're not rigorous some poeple stick to what the Stealth rules says alone where others rely also on what the rules don't say to adjucate Stealth as well. For exemple the Stealth rules don't say that a creature can't hide if you saw it go out of view to enter into it's hiding spot, they only say one can hide when not seen clearly and not making noise. Some DM will rule that they can still hide because they're not seen or heard where they now stand, while others will rule that they can't because observers can deduce their location.

I generally find that people saying the Stealth rules are written intentionally vague are people that more extensively rely also on what the Stealth rules don't say to adjucate them where people that don't just are those more sticking to them as written. The DM can adjucate the Stealth rules and any other rules the way he want in the end if it make their game more enjoyable i am not saying t's bad or anything it's just an observation.

Plaguescarred said:

IMO 5E Stealth is not ''Simulationist approach vs mash the hide button'' but more that since they're not rigorous some poeple stick to what the Stealth rules says alone where others rely also on what the rules don't say to adjucate Stealth as well. For exemple the Stealth rules don't say that a creature can't hide if you saw it go out of view to enter into it's hiding spot, they only say one can hide when not seen clearly and not making noise. Some DM will rule that they can still hide because they're not seen or heard where they now stand, while others will rule that they can't because observers can deduce their location.

Click to expand...

'You cant hide from a creature that can see you clearly enough' to me says just this.

I dont interpret 'hide' in that sentence to mean 'the Hide action'. I interpret that sentence to mean what it means in the real world using plain english language, not as some kind of parsed gamist rules jargon.

You cant say that the rules dont support my interpretation. How I interpret that passage is entirely up to me.

You can say that you favor a different interpretation (and thats fine, more luck to you.)

I generally find that people saying the Stealth rules are written intentionally vague are people that more extensively rely also on what the Stealth rules don't say to adjucate them where people that don't just are those more sticking to them as written

Click to expand...

But do you agree that they're written intentionally vague (and intentionally in a way to support multiple interpretations)?

the Stealth rules don't say that a creature can't hide if you saw it go out of view to enter into it's hiding spot

Flamestrike said:

'You cant hide from a creature that can see you clearly enough' to me says just this.

Click to expand...

Um. If it's out of view, you can't see it at all, let alone "clearly enough".

I dont interpret 'hide' in that sentence to mean 'the Hide action'. I interpret that sentence to mean what it means in the real world using plain english language, not as some kind of parsed gamist rules jargon.

You cant say that the rules dont support my interpretation. How I interpret that passage is entirely up to me.

Click to expand...

That much is true. You can interpret it as ice cream cones if you want to.

Plaguescarred said:

May be you don't understand the sentences or the article if you think it's that ambiguous?

Click to expand...

Actually, it's because I do understand them that I think it's ambiguous.

The conjonction though serving as a qualification doesn't sync with it's meaning ''despite the fact''

Click to expand...

It isn't being used as a conjunction, though. It's being used as an adverb indicating that the halfling's ability qualifies or imposes a restriction on the normal situation that being in full view is a circumstance inappropriate for hiding. The qualification, as I see it, is that as long as the halfling is behind an appropriately sized creature, she can hide in a circumstance where there is no restriction on vision that would make hiding possible. That doesn't mean she can do it while under the observation of the person from whom she's hiding, i.e. it's only a partial qualification.

And if in addition to not be in plain view you need to be behind a creature to try to vanish with Naturally Stealthy like you interpret this qualification, then being behind a creature is really useless since everyone can try to hide when not in plain view, it would only be good to remain hidden. Taken that the halfling's ability doesn't let him remain hidden behind a creature but try to hide as well, that's where your interpretation falls apart.

Click to expand...

But it is in plain view. It's just that no observer is present. Characters without these abilities can't hide in plain view even when no observer is present because whoever they're hiding from will see them.

Maxperson said:

the Stealth rules don't say that a creature can't hide if you saw it go out of view to enter into it's hiding spot

Click to expand...

Yes they do. The say you cant hide from a creature that can see you clearly enough.

If I saw you go into your hiding spot behind your tree, I clearly saw you go into hiding. Ergo, you cant [take the hide action] relative to me once you get behind the tree. I saw you go into hiding.

I mean; you can 'take the Hide action' behind your tree if you want. Your DC is infinity. You fail, and on my turn I walk over behind the tree I saw you duck behind and clobber you with my greataxe.

You can winge and sook about it all you want, but that interpretation is open to me from the RAW. Aint nothing you can do about it either.

Plaguescarred said:

Not it's not you're misunderstanding how it works.

Click to expand...

I flagged the alternative: you make a roll to determine detection, and then (if that succeeds) a second roll to determine if the person is seen (ie because of the disadvantage you have to succeed on both). That means that, on your approach, lightly obscured terrain is excellent for generating disadvantage on attacks: anyone who is in it can make a DEX (Stealth) check and unless the attacker succeeds on two WIS (Perception) checks (because of disadvantge) they have disadvantage to attack the not-hidden-but-not-seen target. (Of course if both WIS checks fail they can't attack - except by way of guessing - because they don't know where the person is.)

This is why I'm not sure about [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION] description of [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s approach as "nerfing" hiding. Nerfing is relative to a baseline; but what's the baseline here? The approach you're describing seems to make light obscurement pretty strong - and if that's how you think it works, to me maybe that speaks in favour of [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s approach.