D&D 5E Stealth & that big Rock!

[KahlessNestor]

You also have disadvantage on Perception checks with darkvision.

 

[Noctem]

You also have disadvantage on Perception checks with darkvision.

Why?

 

[strider13x]

If the orc is in combat, then it's continually looking in all directions and will spot the PC as soon as it tries to attack. You cannot hide from something that can see you. You can't target a foe while you hide behind the rock, because the rock is in the way. If you can see the orc, then you're not fully hidden behind the rock, so the orc can see you just as easily as you can see it.

Partial obscurement isn't enough to hide behind, unless you're a halfling or an elf and the partial cover is coming from an ally or a natural phenomenon (respectively).

I still feel the specific situation calls for a DM ruling, it's not as black and white as you presented. Just because I can see you DOESNT mean you can auto see me. Other terrain can interfere, other characters may be distracting the target. This is why we use dice to determine outcomes, let the dice decide rather than be the DM who always says NO! After the dice say NO then say the Orc is looking at you, if Yes then the Orc was distracted the the Fighter swing his axe at him!
I'll sight an example from a classic D&D module, B2. SPOILER ALERT. In one of the Goblin caves a series of rotting heads are placed in alcoves near the entrance, it so happens that one of the heads is a goblin hiding behind the wall and acting as the lookout, playing dead of course. Now is the Goblin auto seen by the players? Or should a roll be used to determine if the players notice (goblin stealth v passive perception?) Not so simple. Players can be careful in their descriptions so as to add to the scene that element of surprise. If they are bland in stating the action then stick with the by the book ruling, but don't make one ruling to fit all situations. my 2cp.
(not calling you out, Saelorn! Just using your example to build on)

 

[KahlessNestor]

Why?

Darkvision: characters can see in darkness as if in dim light.

Dim light = partially obscured

Partially obscured = disadvantage on Perception relying on sight.

PHB 183

Darkvision is great to have, but most people miss this. It isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. You're still much more likely to be surprised than if you had that light source.

EDIT: Skulker feat also gets rid of the disadvantage penalty in dim light.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Also something missing in this discussion. You only need total concealment or cover to BECOME hidden. I believe you only need partial concealment or cover to REMAIN hidden. So poking your head up doesn't remove hidden until you attack.

I was pretty sure I read this, but went hunting for it in the PHB and couldn't find it. The hiding rules are kind of a mess in there anyway. Anyone else remember this?

 

[Rya.Reisender]

But that's what I meant earlier. If there's dim light and you have dark vision, you see normally. This removes the disadvantage.

Also something missing in this discussion. You only need total concealment or cover to BECOME hidden. I believe you only need partial concealment or cover to REMAIN hidden. So poking your head up doesn't remove hidden until you attack.

You only need partial concealment to become hidden too (this was clarified in the errata). There's no special rule for becoming unhidden. In fact the rules encourage the DM to adjudicate himself when hiding ends because there are too many factors to consider to write them down as exact rules.

 

[KahlessNestor]

But that's what I meant earlier. If there's dim light and you have dark vision, you see normally. This removes the disadvantage.

In dim light, sure. Most players and DMs I have seen just assume "I have darkvision! I can see everything!" Or they complain "Everyone has darkvision now" and forget it isn't free like that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I still feel the specific situation calls for a DM ruling, it's not as black and white as you presented. Just because I can see you DOESNT mean you can auto see me. Other terrain can interfere, other characters may be distracting the target. This is why we use dice to determine outcomes, let the dice decide rather than be the DM who always says NO! After the dice say NO then say the Orc is looking at you, if Yes then the Orc was distracted the the Fighter swing his axe at him!

That's not how the game works, though. It actually bothers to go out of its way to say that characters are generally looking in all directions during combat, and you flat-out can't hide from a creature that can see you. That little part of the text was written to specifically address this issue, and it specifically calls out Invisibility as an exception.

The DM only uses dice to resolve a situation if the outcome is uncertain. If the enemy is alert for threats from all directions, and it can see you (because you aren't heavily obscured or behind total cover), then the outcome is certain - "you can't hide". Given the certainty of the outcome, a die roll would be superfluous. For normal case scenarios, where your allies are engaging the enemies and there are no dragons or earthquakes or anything, that falls under the standard general expectations of combat - that is the "in combat" to which the rules refer. Basic combat doesn't count as a special exception in which to invoke the "certain circumstances" in which a creature might be distracted.

An exception, where you would need to roll, would be if something entirely unexpected and utterly distracting was preventing the creature from looking around. If the orcs are engaged with your paladin and barbarian allies, but then an earthquake strikes while a gold dragon appears overhead, then that might be a sufficient distraction. The specifics of what would qualify fall to the DM, of course, but it would be difficult to argue that it's unexpected for the person with the big sword to swing it at you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not how the game works, though. It actually bothers to go out of its way to say that characters are generally looking in all directions during combat, and you flat-out can't hide from a creature that can see you. That little part of the text was written to specifically address this issue, and it specifically calls out Invisibility as an exception.

Of course it means that. This is why they don't have disadvantage on their perception checks -- they're paying attention. However, being in combat doesn't suddenly turn you into an AEGIS radar; you don't now see everything. People can still hide from you if they're check at stealth is better than your check at perception, as per the rules.

Also, the rules now say 'clearly see you' not just 'see you'. So if they can't clearly see you, they can hide/remain hidden, even with a supposed hyperawareness granted by combat.

The DM only uses dice to resolve a situation if the outcome is uncertain. If the enemy is alert for threats from all directions, and it can see you (because you aren't heavily obscured or behind total cover), then the outcome is certain - "you can't hide". Given the certainty of the outcome, a die roll would be superfluous. For normal case scenarios, where your allies are engaging the enemies and there are no dragons or earthquakes or anything, that falls under the standard general expectations of combat - that is the "in combat" to which the rules refer. Basic combat doesn't count as a special exception in which to invoke the "certain circumstances" in which a creature might be distracted.

Again, aware just means their using their perception normally - no disadvantage. That's what alert means as well. It's generally assumed that when you're alert you have no penalty to perception. If you're distracted, you have a penalty. All that passage in the PHB is saying is 'you're not considered distracted while in combat -- ie, no disad because a dragon is trying to bite your head off.

So your normal case, even in combat, would be opposed stealth check against the alert and aware normal perception check of the critter(s) you're trying to hide from.

An exception, where you would need to roll, would be if something entirely unexpected and utterly distracting was preventing the creature from looking around. If the orcs are engaged with your paladin and barbarian allies, but then an earthquake strikes while a gold dragon appears overhead, then that might be a sufficient distraction. The specifics of what would qualify fall to the DM, of course, but it would be difficult to argue that it's unexpected for the person with the big sword to swing it at you.

You could certainly rule that, and they'd then get disadvantage on their perception check to notice the rogue using his hide check.

Honestly, if you really believe that it's impossible to hide in combat, how to you explain that the rogue's cunning action allows them to use hide as a bonus action -- something they'll only ever be able to use in combat?

 

[slaughterj]

The enemy knows that you were there, and is constantly alert for the possibility that you might appear again from any angle. This part is explicitly stated in the book as the general assumption for how awareness works during combat.

Your analysis was poorly formatted, due to the constraints of the medium at hand. The short answer is that I agree with (4), and (6) follows from (4), but (7) is based purely on speculation. There is no reason to assume that it is intended for a rogue to hide in order to make sneak attacks every round, especially given that is is much easier to qualify for a sneak attack by virtue of having a nearby ally. If you consider that sneak attack from hiding is only intended to matter against a target that is unaware of you (such as during an ambush - before your ally is in place), then the rules are entirely consistent on this point.

No, this issue was settled long ago. My positions concurs with the consensus gathered at that time, and nothing has changed since then. If nobody else is posting here, it's merely because this issue was settled so long ago that it warrants no further discussion.

During combat, a Rogue goes behind total cover, makes a successful stealth check and is hidden, and then peeks around the corner in order to make a ranged sneak attack. You are the only I have ever seen take the extreme position that because the Rogue shows a bit of himself in order to make such an attack, that the Rogue is therefore seen by his foe and unable to sneak attack. You cannot claim that your position on that is somehow an issue that was settled long ago, because no one but you appears to take that position.