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

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6857451]ThePolarBear[/MENTION]

I didn't follow all of your post, and some of it is hard to read because it is black-on-black.

But I don't agree that the way things work in the fiction is irrelevant. The rules for hiding use fictional positioning as a key element of their adjudication (eg references to a character being able to be seen, revealing his/her position, etc).

And clearly a creature can't hide (ie be hidden) when it's location is known to observers. To be hidden is for one's presence at a place to be unknown, more-or-less by definition.

The question is, under what conditions can falling snow, or foliage, or mist, render an elf's location unknown? Can someone be looking at an elf through the falling snow, or through the trees, and then suddenly have a swirl of snow remove the elf from sight (a bit like turning invisible?). I don't have a strong view.

The Wood Elf rules say "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena." But the general rules say "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly". Both make sense - foliage or heavy rain is sufficient to obscure an elf from casual observation, whereas an ordinary person would be noticed. But it is a further question, in my view, whether a person who is looking at an elf clearly through the rain can suddenly lose sight of the elf. Does the elf have a magical ability to render the rain heavier/more obscuring? To create a sudden swirl of obscuring snow? And mechanically, is this a DEX check?

I don't think that confident assertions about what the rules do or don't tell us in answer to this question are very helpful. The rules aren't especially well-drafted, and are manifestly capable of multiple constructions.

That's why I'm more interested in thinking through these interesting cases and working out what the best view is from the point of view of the fiction, playability, balance, broader considerations like "let it ride", etc.

 

[Plaguescarred]

And clearly a creature can't hide (ie be hidden) when it's location is known to observers. To be hidden is for one's presence at a place to be unknown, more-or-less by definition.

I don't think that confident assertions about what the rules do or don't tell us in answer to this question are very helpful. The rules aren't especially well-drafted, and are manifestly capable of multiple constructions

I'm not surprise you say that. Can you cite the rules saying that? I don't think any exist as you usually know someone's location before it successfully hide, that's why it is usually best to move after you do. Again hiding doesn't strickly is having your location concealed, but also being unseen and unheard.

The question is, under what conditions can falling snow, or foliage, or mist, render an elf's location unknown? Can someone be looking at an elf through the falling snow, or through the trees, and then suddenly have a swirl of snow remove the elf from sight (a bit like turning invisible?). I don't have a strong view.

When making a successful Stealth check it becomes unseen and unheard and it's location beccome unknown as others loose tracks of him. Of course someone that know where it was when the elf hid can have a good idea where to guess it's last known location, but this is true for anyone hiding, be it in lightly obscured foliage, heavily obscured darkness or invisible.

The Wood Elf rules say "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena." But the general rules say "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly". Both make sense - foliage or heavy rain is sufficient to obscure an elf from casual observation, whereas an ordinary person would be noticed. But it is a further question, in my view, whether a person who is looking at an elf clearly through the rain can suddenly lose sight of the elf. Does the elf have a magical ability to render the rain heavier/more obscuring? To create a sudden swirl of obscuring snow? And mechanically, is this a DEX check?

Trying to hide is a Dexterity check and succeeding makes the elf's location unknown as well as being unseen and unheard. I'd think of it as camouflage, nothing magical about it.

 

[Uller]

And clearly a creature can't hide (ie be hidden) when it's location is known to observers. To be hidden is for one's presence at a place to be unknown, more-or-less by definition.

Edit: And lest I be misunderstood: I don't think there is anything wrong with Hriston, et al's view. I think the rules sans SA are sufficiently unclear to allow for that view and plain English allows for that view but it also allows for the view I describe below. But the entire thread is going round and round because of these two definitions. You just came in, declared that you hadn't read the thread and then started arguing from one definition while completely ignoring the other. That is the context my first comment below./Edit

No. A million times. No. What is happening is Hriston, Flamestrike and others are arguing from one definition of "hidden" that is not supported by the rules (made even more clear when Jeremy Crawford's Safe Advice on the subject is read without ignoring the context of the question he was answering). Another definition of hidden is unseen and unheard and this definition makes the rules more clear and Mr. Crawford's Sage Advice make more sense. (Full disclosure, I have found myself in disagreement with SA before...but in that case I just ignore it...I don't try to argue he didn't mean what he clearly meant).

Here is a RL example.

Me to my wife: Where are my keys?
Wife: Right there on the counter?
Me: Where?
Wife: Right there! Beside the calendar.
Me: Uh...I don't see them.
Wife (rolling her eyes walking over and pick them up): Right! Here!

Another one (I was a tanker):
Tank Commander: Gunner, Coax, Infantry in the tree line (this is the command to fire the coax machine gun at a specific target)
Gunner: I don't see them
TC: Right where your sight is pointing. Tree line, 200 meters.
Gunner: I don't see them (fires anyway in the general area and gets disadvantage on the shot)

Defining hidden as location unknown rather than unseen and unheard excludes these scenarios from the game. The example I gave up thread is a wood elf hides in the brush from two characters. One character moves near the wood elf and spots it because it is no longer lightly obscured. The spotting character announces the location of the wood elf. That does not (or at least should not) automatically reveal the elf to the other character even though the other character now knows the location of the wood-elf. I would allow a free perception check or if the character spends an action to search I would allow advantage on the perception check since he now knows right where to look, but it knowledge of the location does not automatically reveal the wood-elf.

 

[Schattenriss]

In this discussion about hiding the differentiation between unseen and location is important. There are different scenarios to be considered.

---------------------------------

Lets take the pillar example with one rogue and one enemy. A rogue moves behind the pillar (one square). So he has total cover from the enemies, because the line of sight is blocked. Being behind cover means he is unseen, but his location is known (assuming the enemy did see him moving behind the pillar). Whether or not the rogue hides does not matter: he is now unseen.

Now the enemy moves with parts of his movement to get a line of sight behind the pillar. There are the following cases.

Case 1: bright light
However, if the enemy now moves in a position that he has a line of sight behind the pillar (because he knows the rogue is there), he will spot him if bright light shines on that place (e.g. outdoor on a sunny day). From the new position of the enemy hide does not work, because there is no way hide works in a bright place // to hide from the new position of the enemy.

Only way to hide in bright light without cover would be invisibility (case 2 applies)

Case 2: dim light or darkness or invisibility
However, the rogue can benefit from hidding behind the pillar, if
a) the light conditions are heavily obscured behind that pillar or
c) the light conditions are lightly obscured behind that pillar and the rogue has e.g. Skulker feat
the rogue could benefit from the hide action behind the pillar.

Let's assume the rogue does hide and the stealth check has beaten the passive perception of the enemy: the rogue remains unseen, even after the enemy has moved and reposition himself to get a line of sight behind the pillar.

Now the enemy has two options:
I) try to spot the enemy (perception check)
II) attack the location (because he knows the rogue is behind the pillar)

Reg. I) If the enemy does decide to actively search for him, he would roll a perception check vs. the stealth result of the rogue. Either he spots him or he does not. If he spots the rogue, his turn is over and the rogue starts his next turn.
Reg. I) if the enemy attacks the location (because he believes the rogue is behind the pillar), the enemy does attack with disadvantage (rogue remains unseen because he is hidden), but he can attack, because he knows the location of the unseen rogue.

Of course, if the enemy is a wizard and he throws a fireball behind the pillar, hiding has no effect due to AOE.

Size of pillar (respective area to hide)
If the the pillar is larger than one square the enemy does not exactly know the location of a hidden rogues. Let's assume the pillar has two squares. In this case the enemy has a 50/50 chance to attack the right location. If he chooses the right location, the attack is made with disadvantage. If he chooses th wrong one, the attack misses.

---------------------------------



Not sure if you see it in the same way (lol see). But this is at least how I understand the logic of hiding. For sure you will have other views on it and that is perfectly fine.

Happy Gaming!

 

[Uller]

Not sure if you see it in the same way (lol see). But this is at least how I understand the logic of hiding. For sure you will have other views on it and that is perfectly fine.

Happy Gaming!

Pretty much how I play it. I've never had a problem. It is clear to my players how it works. No one feels like they aren't getting to use their cool abilities. No feels like it is unfair or over powered. I do try to use some common sense to use advantage/disadvantage and modifiers to keep things in line with people's expectations. For instance, in the pillar/box scenario I'd give the rogue disadvantage and/or the observer advantage on the stealth vs perception check if the rogue is right where the observer expects.

 

[Maxperson]

But, in the fiction, I agree with Hriston that there is no point in (fictional) time at which (i) the elf's state is one of being hidden, and yet (ii) the elf's state is one of being observed. There may be a point at which the elf is observed (and hence not hidden). But once the elf becomes hidden, the situation reverses: s/he is no longer being observed.

Nobody is arguing that the elf is both hidden and observed. The argument on our side is that the elf is observed, and then becomes hidden while being observed, at which point the elf is now hidden and no longer observed. [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is arguing that the elf cannot do that, even though both RAW and the Sage Advice say otherwise.

The actual event (of becoming hidden) is not one which takes any time as far as the fiction of D&D is concerned. But something clearly takes place that renders the elf unable to be seen (and I think the Sage Advice confirms that it is not that the elf changes colour/visual texture so as to camouflage him-/herself). That thing means that it is no longer true that s/he is able to be observed.

Consider, thus, those who are staring at the elf - at one moment they can see him/her, then it starts snowing and s/he disappears. Or, if it is already snowing, then at one moment they can see the elf through the snow, then suddenly their is a swirl of snow ("nature itself cloaks the wood elf") and s/he vanishes.

Yes. Exactly. You agree with us that the elf can hide and leave view, even while being stared at and observed.

 

[Maxperson]

And clearly a creature can't hide (ie be hidden) when it's location is known to observers. To be hidden is for one's presence at a place to be unknown, more-or-less by definition.

I disagree. When my 3 year old steps behind the couch to hide, he is hidden there even though I know where he is at. I can't see or hear him. He's hiding, albeit not very effectively.

The question is, under what conditions can falling snow, or foliage, or mist, render an elf's location unknown? Can someone be looking at an elf through the falling snow, or through the trees, and then suddenly have a swirl of snow remove the elf from sight (a bit like turning invisible?). I don't have a strong view.

It seems to me to be a quasi-supernatural ability.

The Wood Elf rules say "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena." But the general rules say "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly". Both make sense - foliage or heavy rain is sufficient to obscure an elf from casual observation, whereas an ordinary person would be noticed. But it is a further question, in my view, whether a person who is looking at an elf clearly through the rain can suddenly lose sight of the elf. Does the elf have a magical ability to render the rain heavier/more obscuring? To create a sudden swirl of obscuring snow? And mechanically, is this a DEX check?

It's a hide check, so yes it would be a dex check, unless the DM uses the optional rule and assigns a different stat to the hide check.

 

[Uchawi]

Well in theory if you successfully hide, then those that can't see you are hidden as well. You are blind to them, and they are blind to you. Does that constitute a surprise round?

 

[Harzel]

Size of pillar (respective area to hide)
If the the pillar is larger than one square the enemy does not exactly know the location of a hidden rogues. Let's assume the pillar has two squares. In this case the enemy has a 50/50 chance to attack the right location. If he chooses the right location, the attack is made with disadvantage. If he chooses the wrong one, the attack misses.

This brings up a point that I think needs more attention. In this discussion, people have been tossing around the notion of "knowing location" as if it were a simple binary proposition. I think it is not. As I see it there are (at least) two complications.

1. Certainty. In reality, I never know anything for sure - I am always just guessing. Sometimes my certainty will be high, other times, low. And to make matters more complex, it is possible to have multiple guesses about the same thing, with varying certainties (approximate probabilities) attached to them. I see the monk go behind the pillar. If I am not very imaginative, I may be highly certain that the monk is behind the pillar. On the other hand if I take monkish trickery into account, I may guess that it is also possible that she has shadow stepped to the area behind another pillar.
2. Precision. In this context, 'location' must have a dimension of precision attached to it. I may believe with high certainty that a creature is in a particular room, but be quite uncertain which 5x5 area it is in. Or to put it in a more precise, but overly verbose way, for each 5x5 area in the room, the certainty of my belief that the creature is in that 5x5 area reflects that I consider all those possibilities to be equally probably.

So what is the relevance of all this? For me, at least, it can help make explicit some assumptions that have people talking past each other if the assumptions remain implicit. If we take for instance the contention that "a creature whose location is known cannot be hidden", we can now see that this is problematic in several ways. First of all, we'll have to rephrase to make sure that it is clear what "know" means in this context. I think (but I could be wrong) what most folks mean is that "if your belief about a creature's location is correct, then the creature cannot be hidden from you". Now the problem becomes more obvious - out of all my beliefs about the creature's location, which one are you talking about? How certain must I be and what precision must my guess have? Is my being moderately certain that a creature is in a particular 30x30 area sufficient to preclude its being hidden from me? I would not think so, but some of you may disagree. (?)

 

[Uller]

Well in theory if you successfully hide, then those that can't see you are hidden as well. You are blind to them, and they are blind to you. Does that constitute a surprise round?

Why do you think that if you successfully hide, those that can't see you are hidden as well?

Edit: Just to expand a bit. To become "hidden" you must be not clearly seen (invisible, heavily obscurred, or lightly obscured under certain circumstances such as a wood-elf in natural conditions) AND succeed at a stealth vs perecption check. Most of the time you must either hide before you are within sensory range of potential observers or use the hide action. So....again...how is it that others become hidden to you if you become hidden?