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

Plaguescarred said:

Why are you assuming Sage Advice's use of "observers nearby" are people not seeing when it even later specify "directly starring" i don't know but the word observer according to Oxford rather means the contrary anyway https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/observer

Observer: A person who watches or notices something

Click to expand...

An observer is one who watches or notices things. That doesn't mean an observer notices everything. For example, Crawford's nearby observers do not necessarily notice the lightfoot halfling or wood elf. In fact, by definition, they do not notice anyone currently hidden from them.

Hriston said:

An observer is one who watches or notices things. That doesn't mean an observer notices everything. For example, Crawford's nearby observers do not necessarily notice the lightfoot halfling or wood elf. In fact, by definition, they do not notice anyone currently hidden from them.

Click to expand...

That is the definition that you choose to take. Someone lightly obscured or half-covered is still seen by all creatures nearby that can see. No perception chgeck needed to see someone with half cover or lightly obscured.

So you instead opt for the other option where that observer is actually not looking which would then be pointless!

Plaguescarred said:

That is the definition that you choose to take. Someone lightly obscured or half-covered is still seen by all creatures nearby that can see. No perception chgeck needed to see someone with half cover or lightly obscured.

So you instead opt for the other option where that observer is actually not looking which would then be pointless!

Click to expand...

No, I'm taking the option described by Crawford. The wood elf and lightfoot are hiding in their special circumstances and so are not noticed by observers unless they lose the contest.

Hriston said:

Oh, so now it's a "fact" that everyone else accepts your version of reality. Fascinating. Strangely, I recall several posters who have not agreed with your "facts". The ones who do have apparently not commented.

Click to expand...

No. It's a fact, because it happened. Clearly not everyone agrees with reality. You are a prime example of someone not agreeing with this fact.

Hriston said:

First, if we're going to talk about the form of the question, it doesn't ask if they can "try to hide" while observed (not that I think it matters, but you seem to). It asks if they are allowed to hide while observed. It's actually a fairly poorly worded question. Crawford couldn't very well have answered yes because he'd have been saying they could be both hidden and observed at the same time, which can't be right. If he'd simply said no, it would have done nothing to explain what the actual benefits of the traits are. This is why he chose to give a longer, more nuanced answer, and in doing so reframed the question as one of whether the traits could be used with observers nearby, rather than "while observed". Eyes can be "not seeing" just as well as observers can, especially when looking at something hidden, which is remarkably similar to the way the game refers to a creature that's trying to see something it can't as essentially having the blinded condition.

Click to expand...

It's not poorly worded at all. Observed means seen. Seen means you are not hidden. Therefore, the question is clearly, to anyone bothering to think it through, referring to going into hiding while someone is seeing you. An observer is only who is already observing. It can't be anything else. If the "observer" isn't already observing, then it is not an observer, but merely a potential observer. Observers nearby can only mean that not only are they nearby, but they are seeing you.

Thanks. This is clearly the exchange of tweets that was expanded into the Sage Advice article, and it has the same issue of Crawford reframing and not really answering the original question. I find it interesting that in the Sage Advice article the second part of the question was edited out, whereas Crawford's answer mostly elaborates on what the actual benefits of the traits are albeit in the same ambiguous language used in the original rules.

Click to expand...

Yes. He clearly uses observers, so you can try to hide while being looked at.

Hriston said:

No, I'm taking the option described by Crawford. The wood elf and lightfoot are hiding in their special circumstances and so are not noticed by observers unless they lose the contest.

Click to expand...

Until they hide, they were not "hiding", and were thus noticed. They are observed by the observers, but because they have special powers, they can attempt to become hidden even while someone is staring directly at them. At which point they become hidden, if they win the contest.

But before they try to hide? They're observed, same as anyone else would be.

To put it another way: What is it that you think the wood elf can do that a human can't, exactly?

Plaguescarred said:

Those features do say they can try to hide when lightly obscured or obscured only by a creature. Requiring to not be seen clearly in addition to that just make it more difficult for them to hide by requiring extra conditions to be met to use those features since everyone can already try to hide when not seen clearly

Click to expand...

I know that you don't agree with [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s reading of the rules, but this makes me think that perhaps you also don't understand it.

Hriston distiguishes two cases: being under direct observation (= being seen clearly, at least nearly enough for present purposes), which (per the general hiding rules) precludes hiding; and being lightly obscured, which - if you are not a skulker, wild elf et al - will not allow you to remain hidden when someone looks at you.

The benefit conferred by skulker, mask of the wild, etc - on this analysis - is that if you are not observed, and hide in light obscurement, then when someone looks in your direction they won't see you unless their check beats your check. Whereas if you are an ordinary perosn, then (to reiterate the last clause of my previous paragraph) when someone looks in your direciton they will see you with no check required (because you're not hidden, because you're only lightly obscured and hence liable to being seen clearly).

In the fiction, here is what is going on (on [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s reading): if a wild elf standing in the rain is already under observation (= clearly seen), then any attempt to hide will fail (against that observer), because that observer can already see the elf and hence can keep track of the elf when the latter tries to step behind a rain drop. Whereas if an elf is standing unobserved in the rain, hiding behind the rain drops, then when an observer turns the corner and (thereby) has the elf enter his/her field of vision, s/he must make a check to see the elf because Mask of the Wild allows the elf to remain hidden behind rain drops. Whereas an ordinary person could not do that, and hence would automatically be seen when the would-be observer turns the corner.

You may not agree with this reading, but I don't think it's that hard to follow, or make sense of in either the rules or the fiction.

seebs said:

Since anyone can hide when not directly observed, calling out that some people can hide under particular circumstances, when anyone could hide in those circumstances if not directly observed, is meaningless unless it's intended to communicate that they can hide even when directly observed. Which is what Sage Advice has clearly communicated is the intent.

In short, use Gricean maxims

Click to expand...

But the Gricean maxims equally point the other way: if someone means to convey "X can hide even when under direct observation and hence being clearly seen", why use such oblique expressions as "X can hid when observers are nearby, and when eyes are staring directly at him/her"?

I think the answer is obvious - the hiding rules are meant to sustain a range of approaches at the table, are deliberately written so as to straddle those various uses, and the Sage Advice reiterates the same ambiguities.

I'm sure some people run hiding very similar to 4e: being unseeen is a necessary condition for entering the hidden state, but then it can be sustained as long as there is some obscurement. For these people, the only way MotW et al are useful is if they permit becoming hidden even when not unseen, but only lightly obscured.

On the other hand, [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] does not run hiding like 4e: being lightly obscured is not, by default, sufficient to remain hidden at Hriston's table. On this approach, MotW et al confer a benefit by changing that state of affairs.

On the semantic side of things, for the 4e approach it is important to distinguish between "hiding", "attempting to hide", etc = become hidden and "hiding", "attempting to hide", etc = remain hidden. On Hriston's approach, on the other hand, these are all equivalent: in metaphysical terms, you could say that on Hriston's approach the (enduring) state of being hidden is nothing but a sequence of events of becoming hidden.

The language of the rules, by not clearly distinguishing between state and event, again leaves both readings open. I don't think this is an accident. Crawford is clever, and can write more precisely than that if he wants to.

seebs said:

What is it that you think the wood elf can do that a human can't, exactly?

Click to expand...

See this post, and also my post preceding it upthread.

Plaguescarred said:

Observer: A person who watches or notices something

Click to expand...

Note that these two things are, for present purposes, not the same.

A watcher can watch but fail to notice. Whereas someone who notices something has, by definition as it were, not failed to notice that thing.

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] and I take "observers nearby" to mean "watchers nearby", ie those who have the potential to notice the elf; not to mean those who have already noticed the elf.

As I have posted several times, most recently just upthread in reply to [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION], if Crawford meant "observers of the elf" or "watchers directly observing the elf", then he could have said those things. That he chose far more ambiguous language is presumably not just carelessness.

Maxperson said:

It's not poorly worded at all. Observed means seen. Seen means you are not hidden. Therefore, the question is clearly, to anyone bothering to think it through, referring to going into hiding while someone is seeing you. An observer is only who is already observing.

<snip>

He clearly uses observers, so you can try to hide while being looked at.

Click to expand...

First, it's absurd to suggest that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] or I have not bothered to think this through. We each have dozens of posts on this thread that are replete with extensive and articulated thought.

Many people disagree with many other people about many things. It doesn't follow that they've failed to think things through. Sometimes thinking people disagree. (I'll offer Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as famous examples: three thinkers, each of whom had significantly different views about a number of the things they had thought about.)

Second, this is another case of you being careless with language in what you present as a semantic argument.

"Observed" means "seen", but the word "observed" appears nowhere in the Sage Advice - despite being used in the question that is (notionally) being answered.

"Observer", on the other hand, doesn't mean "seer" - as [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] posted, it can mean that but can also mean "watcher" or "looker" - and it is notorious that a person who is watching or looking can still fail to see or notice things.

Here is the Sage Advice; I have bolded what I think are the key load-bearing phrases:


Here is a repost with those phrases glossed as I understand [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] to interpret them:


The key elements of this glossing are (1) distinguishing between being seen, being looked for, and being in someone's field of vision, and (2) not distinguishing between becoming hidden and remaining hidden. For more on this, see my post 797 upthread.