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

I think it's worth looking more closely at this.

"Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena."

The most important thing here is: This implies that a halfling behind a creature that is at least one size larger, or a wood elf in natural phenomena, is in full view. Because if they weren't, that "normally, you can't hide... halfling, though" construction wouldn't make sense; there would be no distinction being made between the first claim and the second.

And yes, Hriston's view absolutely depends on not distinguishing between becoming and remaining hidden, but 5e seems to me to be quite clear about distinguishing between those.

FWIW, I took "staring directly at" to be intended as a stronger claim than "clearly seen", offered specifically to emphasize that it's not just applicable when you could be seen, but that it's applicable when you are being seen, and indeed, watched intently. You can still just go "poof" because that's the entire point of the power. Especially with the word "vanish" in use, because "vanishing" suggests a transition from seen-to-unseen, not just never being seen in the first place.

pemerton said:

In the fiction, here is what is going on (on @Hriston'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.

Click to expand...

An observer cannot turn the corner. Unless the elf is seen by whatever turned that corner, there is no observer there. There is only an orc or what have you. You cannot be an observer of the elf unless you are seeing the elf. When the tweet and Sage Advice say "nearby observers" and "starting directly at", they mean that they are seeing the elf. Not potentially seeing the elf. @Hriston's "reading" ignores the meanings of words in order to try and be correct.

pemerton said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Not in the context used. In order to be an observer, one must be observing. Since the question is about hiding, the observer must be observing the hider. Assuming of course that you think the person tweeting is at least semi-competent.

The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”​

The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to be hidden in their special circumstances even when watchers who might see them are nearby. Normally, you can’t remain hidden from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can be hidden behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can be hidden simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from the eyes of those who might see him/her—even if the elf is in the field of vision of a potential observer! Both subraces are able to be hidden in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s attempt to be hidden is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”​

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.

Click to expand...

I understand his argument. It's just wrong. In the context of the sage advice and the tweet, observers must be observing the hider or else they are not observers. If you assume that the sage advice and tweet are talking about someone already hidden, then the phrase "nearby observers" is nonsensical. There are no nearby observers since they have not seen the hidden elf. The writers would have to be incompetent to use that phrase under those circumstances.

If however you assume that they have seen the elf, then "nearby observers" and "staring directly at" make sense. Now, you also have to take into account that it talks about trying to hide WHILE there are nearby observers and while being stared directly at. Since of these two interpretations the only one that makes sense is the one where the nearby observers are staring directly at the unhidden elf, the official ruling means that under lightly obscured conditions an elf can make an attempt to hide while seen .

seebs said:

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.

Click to expand...

I undestand your interpretation and I appreciate that you flipped the usual outcome of a tie in the DEX/WIS contest to reflect it. I have my own interpretation which works just fine. So in an effort to explain my interpretation to those who don't seem to get it, my response to the above is no, not if there's no one there to notice them when they do. I wouldn't let them hide if there was someone staring right at them before they were hidden and up until they tried to become hidden. That's because, in my game, an effort to hide is generally an effort to keep your whereabouts unknown rather than make them unknown, hiding in a suitably sized heavily obscured area or when invisible being the primary exceptions for obvious reasons. So if they have been allowed to become hidden then it can't be true that someone is there observing them at that moment.

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

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked this considering that [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] and at least a few other posters really seem to think my interpretation leaves MotW with no discernable benefit. The benefit is that the wood elf can remain undiscovered under a circumstance in which a human would be immediately discovered. For example, a human, a lightfoot halfling, and a wood elf are sneaking through an enclosed courtyard which contains some areas of moderate foliage. They hear a patrol group coming, so the wood elf dives into the moderate foliage. The human follows suit, and the halfling steps behind the human. When the patrol comes within visual range they see the human, but if the elf and halfling roll high enough they are undiscovered. Compare this with what would have happened if it was three humans in the same situation. The elf and halfling have a clear advantage.

If you wouldn't let them hide when someone's staring at them, you are directly contradicting the unambiguous statement we got, that they can vanish, which is to say, cease to be seen, while having been seen until they did so, while someone is staring at them.

And you're allowed to make that rule, but it's not what Crawford said. And I simply don't think there's anywhere near enough ambiguity in the language to justify your position.

And you're quite right that generally hiding is about "remaining unobserved". Generally. But that is the exact contrast that we are given for the halfling and wood elf abilities. Normally you cannot try to hide while being observed. But halflings and wood elves can, under specific circumstances, hide while being observed. That's their special power.

What you appear to have done is globally nerfed stealth, by not allowing people to remain hidden while partially obscured even if they made a good hide check, and then selectively reversed the nerf. That's... interesting, I guess? But it's not what Crawford described.

seebs said:

This implies that a halfling behind a creature that is at least one size larger, or a wood elf in natural phenomena, is in full view.

Click to expand...

Which everyone agrees with - they can be hidden although fully within someone's field of vision.

The question is whether they can transition from seen to unseen while still in full view. Some think they can, others think they can't.

seebs said:

Hriston's view absolutely depends on not distinguishing between becoming and remaining hidden, but 5e seems to me to be quite clear about distinguishing between those.

Click to expand...

4e is crystal clear on this distinction. 5e less so - I entered this thread assuming it worked much like 4e, but [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has persuaded me otherwise.

seebs said:

FWIW, I took "staring directly at" to be intended as a stronger claim than "clearly seen"

Click to expand...

Whereas I took it the other way - because the reference is not to the observer staring at the elf, but the oberver's eyes doing so - an odd construction, and far from the most natural way to simply talk about one person actually seeing another (as opposed to having his/her eyes staring at the person yet failing to see him/her because the person is hidden).

Maxperson said:

In order to be an observer, one must be observing.

<snip>

n the context of the sage advice and the tweet, observers must be observing the hider or else they are not observers. If you assume that the sage advice and tweet are talking about someone already hidden, then the phrase "nearby observers" is nonsensical.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It can be read as "nearby watchers".

pemerton said:

Which everyone agrees with - they can be hidden although fully within someone's field of vision.

The question is whether they can transition from seen to unseen while still in full view. Some think they can, others think they can't.

Click to expand...

Yes. But Crawford's words clearly indicate that they can.

4e is crystal clear on this distinction. 5e less so - I entered this thread assuming it worked much like 4e, but [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has persuaded me otherwise.

Click to expand...

5e is less unambiguous on the distinction, but it's still there in the natural language used. It's not specifically called out with special game terminology, but it's still there.

Whereas I took it the other way - because the reference is not to the observer staring at the elf, but the oberver's eyes doing so - an odd construction, and far from the most natural way to simply talk about one person actually seeing another (as opposed to having his/her eyes staring at the person yet failing to see him/her because the person is hidden).

Click to expand...

I think you're reading too much into that. It may not be the one and only absolutely simplest natural way that you would use if you were spending millions of dollars on making sure that every word was carefully chosen for maximum comprehensibility... But it's well within the scope of the way the rules are normally written, because they are full of language that isn't maximally direct when giving flavor/fluff to characterize what happens.

No it's not. It can be read as "nearby watchers".

Click to expand...

Not in a way that makes sense with the whole text. If you drill down on one phrase at a time, you can offer conceptually-possible alternative readings, but they don't make any sense when taking the text as a whole.

Tell you what. Either of you gets a direct statement from Jeremy Crawford that he absolutely meant that you can't transition-to-hidden while observed, only remain hidden while a person is actually not observing you but in the same general area looking around, I'll donate $50 to a charity of your choice.

But I don't think you can, because the entire point of saying that you've been observed is that someone actually noticed you.

I was about to post one of my long posts again. I just reread it and it was flamey and not worth posting. I apologize even if it's something that will never see the light of day.

However, i'll leave two thoughts here.

First, is that "When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.", and that is very in line with 4e. Trying to hide has to begin somewhere and the check is only one. There's no check to remain hidden (which was another point discussed before... every instance is either "your location becomes known" or something along the lines for perception checks going over the stealth roll, but that's another story)

Second is that, no matter what, "remain" or "be" is not "hide". Changing the phrase changes the meaning. Since Crawford is smart, he could have worded it in another way if it meant anything but all that "hide" can mean.
If i were to change the sage advice's "hide" with "eat" and then make a "pemerton's view of Hriston reading" pass at the text the result would be hilarious.

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

They can not just be hidden in such obscurement when observers are nearby, but try to hide in them when observers are nearby as well. They can try to hide and vanish while still seen in plain view- even when eyes are starring directly at them is what Sage Advice is telling us.

"Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena"

pemerton said:

@Hriston 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.

"Observer", on the other hand, doesn't mean "seer" - as @Plaguescarred 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.

Click to expand...

Sage Advice take "observers nearby" as being in plain view from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at them. The latter part basically explain that the observers are not just there watching but not seeing you, but looking right at you!

Hriston said:

I wouldn't let them hide if there was someone staring right at them before they were hidden and up until they tried to become hidden.

Click to expand...

Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A halfling and an elf, though, can try to hide simply by being behind a larger creature or in a natural phenomena. This is what Sage Advice is basically clarifying.

While you're more than free to not let them try to hide in plain view but only remain hidden in such, that is not how those features are intended to work according to Sage Advice. That is not a case where normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view but a halfling though can try to vanish......

For your position to be supported Sage Advice would need to say;

"Normally, you can’t hide remain hidden from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish remain hidden behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide remain hidden simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena"

Plaguescarred said:

Sage Advice take "observers nearby" as being in plain view from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at them. The latter part basically explain that the observers are not just there watching but not seeing you, but looking right at you!

Click to expand...

Well, X can be looking right at Y yet not see Y, if Y is hidden from X (eg by the camouflage of the leaves and the rain). So "looking right at you" doesn't necessarily contrast with "watching, but not seeing you".

ThePolarBear said:

"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.", and that is very in line with 4e. Trying to hide has to begin somewhere and the check is only one. There's no check to remain hidden

Click to expand...

The point is that "try to hide" has a perfectly normal usage which is synonymous with "remain hidden".

ThePolarBear said:

If i were to change the sage advice's "hide" with "eat" and then make a "pemerton's view of Hriston reading" pass at the text the result would be hilarious.

Click to expand...

Well, if I were to substitue every occurence of the letter "e" in your post with the letter "q" it would be nonsense - but what does that tell us?

In my gloss of the Sage Advice, I've preserved meaning in accordance with the sort of approach that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is advocating. I don't dispute that other glosses are possible. (Neither does [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], as best I can tell.)

Just look at some recent contributors to this thread: [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] won't allow a non-skulker, non-elf to remain hidden if the only concealment available is light obscurement; but [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION] will (as best I can tell from some recent posts). Neither is crazy, or misreading the rules - the rules simply aren't that precise.