D&D 5E So.... hide?

[cthulhu42]

I can only imagine that this has been covered at length, and if so, maybe someone can provide a link to the answer. Otherwise I'd settle for just a little clarification.

Here's the situation: The PC's meet a monster. They see it. It sees them. They engage.

The party rogue (a halfling) hides behind the fighter, then pops out with his bow, scoring a sneak attack. He uses the remainder of his moves to jump back behind another party member and hide again. Or so he claims.

To me, the rules say (phb 172, I think) that you can't hide from somebody who sees you. Therefor, since the rogue was already seen at the initial meeting between foes, and no distraction has occurred during which the rogue was out of view, he can't just hide.

The player tells me that this stance has been refuted at length on several forums.

So what gives?

 

[fjw70]

It does not say you can't hide if you were seen in the past. It says you cannot hide if you currently are not seen. You could impose disadvantage on re-hiding (Mearls says that is what he does) or disallow the re-hide, but the rules do not prevent the hide attempt.

 

[Leatherhead]

The Lightfoot halfing's Naturally Stealthy ability (page 28) allows an attempt to hide even when they are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than them.

 

[cthulhu42]

The Lightfoot halfing's Naturally Stealthy ability (page 28) allows an attempt to hide even when they are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than them.

That's not the point of contention. I totally get that lightfoots can do that. The question is : can he hide after having been seen, and while still in view of the foe?

 

[steeldragons]

I would say, no, he can't.

But I would also propose that, have engaged this party, being attacked by other party members would easily produce a "distraction" or mean that the enemy's eyes are not focused on the halfling/what they're doing. So, in that case, Hide away.

I think the only consensus is that it's a DM call. Rulings not rules...and the specific outweighs the general. AND, most importantly, DM has the final say. What the players WANT to happen or think should happen are not relevant. They are not the ones with the authority to make the call. Nip that in the bud right quick.

 

[Paraxis]

That's not the point of contention. I totally get that lightfoots can do that. The question is : can he hide after having been seen, and while still in view of the foe?

The point is the halfling ability makes it so he is no longer in view of his foe.

Having been seen previously doesn't enter into it.

Can the creature he is trying to hide from see him currently, if the halfling is behind an ally the answer is no.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's not the point of contention. I totally get that lightfoots can do that. The question is : can he hide after having been seen, and while still in view of the foe?

He may attempt to do so, yes. He would have to roll a hide(Stealth)-check that would beat the passive perception of the enemies (all of them if there is more than one), if he does so he has simply slipped from view and is now hidden.

Also, as pointed out above the way the halfling racial works it actually removes them "from view" of the enemies when behind something at least one size category larger than them. So your halfling rogue would no longer be "in view" of the enemy. Though two things are worth noting on this point: The rule says "behind" so it implies facing. Your halfling would be hidden from all foes on the other side of the creature it hides behind, but NOT ones behind him.

 

[Uller]

Mike Mearls (I think it was him....could have been Rodney Thompson) addressed this specific instance. Sorry...I don't have the link. Basically he said it's your table, handle situations in ways that make sense for you. But he said at his table he would allow a hide attempt but at disadvantage if the hider had been seen, ducks behind some cover and then attempts to hide. Makes sense to me.

At my table, I'll give you a normal stealth check if you do something to make some attempt to be deceptive. Get out of sight, move (while still out of sight) to some other unexpected location. The hide/attack/hide routine might work normally the first time, with disadvantage the second time, then not at all once the monsters are on to you...

Keep in mind that in the scenario you described, halflings are small, nonthreatening looking little creatures compared to all the "Big People" around them. An unwise (low perception score) monster is likely to focus on the big heavily armed fighter, not the little 3' tall child like creature cowering behind him.

 

[fjw70]

The bottom line is there is no rule that says you can't hide if the enemy knows (or thinks it knows) the space you occupy. The DM is free to impose such as rule however.

Also, while hidden the enemy can still guess your space and attack you at disadvantage (assuming it correctly guesses your space). The halfling will also have cover since it is behind its ally.

 

[Aimian_Silverflash]

My personal take on it: I'd let them do it once, but once a monster is smacked with the first sneak attack, I'd personally rule that they don't get anymore sneak attack damage until they change locations, say at least 10 feet or so. Hiding behind the fighter is perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't even give disadvantage on the roll. But just because you're behind the fighter and I can't see you doesn't mean I don't know you're there, and I don't know you're about to jump back out and shoot me again. Sneak attack dice represents striking an unsuspecting target from an unknown location. That doesn't cut the mustard for me.

If he wanted to do that and then, roll unseen behind a bush 15 feet away off to the monster's flank, then take a shot from the new (unknown) position, I'd probably allow that. But munchkin-ing the rules so you're just ducking back and forth behind the fighter with a short bow getting sneak attack dice every time? Nope. I wouldn't allow that.