D&D 5E Halfling rogue sniping from the the second rank

[TDarien]

I wouldn't call that a "great" example, unless you meant to prove my point If the character teleported, he moved!

But you don't know if he moved or not, because he was hidden. You HAVE to check. You know the last place you saw him, but you don't know for sure if that's where he still is, because he's hidden (and NOT just because you can't see him).

Your example is also completely true if the character doesn't take the Hide action, but merely stands behind a tree out of sight.

It is absolutely NOT true if the character doesn't take the hide action. If he doesn't hide, the other characters KNOW HIS EXACT POSITION EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN'T SEE HIM, and therefore knows if he teleports.

That's my point. Creatures know the location of EVERY creature in a combat EVEN IF THEY CAN'T SEE THEM, unless they are hidden. EVERY time a creature hides, every creature knew where it was when it hid unless it was hidden before the combat started, or was distracted for some other reason.

 

[Sir Brennen]

That's my point. Creatures know the location of EVERY creature in a combat EVEN IF THEY CAN'T SEE THEM, unless they are hidden. EVERY time a creature hides, every creature knew where it was when it hid unless it was hidden before the combat started, or was distracted for some other reason.

Umm.. no. If a character moves around a corner out of sight and continues to move, without hiding, the other creatures don't know if he moved 10, 15 or 30 feet.

It is absolutely NOT true if the character doesn't take the hide action. If he doesn't hide, the other characters KNOW HIS EXACT POSITION EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN'T SEE HIM, and therefore knows if he teleports.

I can't even begin to describe how little sense this makes to me.

Are you saying all creatures have x-ray vision? Clairvoyance? Why would they still know the exact position AND what actions he's taking? Where are the rules citations to support this interpretation?

 

[TDarien]

Umm.. no. If a character moves around a corner out of sight and continues to move, without hiding, the other creatures don't know if he moved 10, 15 or 30 feet.

It's that whole "Creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around" bit. If you're not trying to conceal your position (ie. hiding) I know where you are, by sound or some other sign of your passage, the same way I know where an invisible creature is, even though I can't see it.

I can't even begin to describe how little sense this makes to me.

Are you saying all creatures have x-ray vision? Clairvoyance? Why would they still know the exact position AND what actions he's taking? Where are the rules citations to support this interpretation?

Page 73. Unseen Attackers and Targets

When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn’t in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target’s location correctly.
...
If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when
you make an attack, you give away your location when
the attack hits or misses.

The bolded part, coupled with the bit in the hiding block: "In combat most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around" strongly implies that you know the location of creatures you can hear.

Yes, if you move out of earshot and line of sight, other creatures will lose track of you. But for the most part, if you want to conceal your position from other creatures the only way to do that is with the hide action.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Very interesting discussion. First off it's clear that different DM's will adjudicate this situation differently. That's one of the things I love about the 5th edition so far, and why it reminds me so much of the first and early second editions. The DM (and the players) can interpret the rules in the manner they see fit.

So here's my 2 cp.

Trenstemporal says "it can't be any clearer" and I agree:

Naturally Stealthy doesn't say you CAN hide even when obscured by a creature at least one size larger than you.

It says you can ATTEMPT to hide in that circumstance. There's a big difference. The halfling is so stealthy he can even hide behind somebody else, something that nobody else can do. BUT, the attempt still has to be successful.

So yes, very clear. But you have to succeed in that attempt to actually hide. So when anybody tries to hide, we've got to look at the actual rules for hiding:

When you try (attempt) to hide...​

So this covers all attempts to hide, whether by special ability or not.

Until you are discovered or you stop hiding...
​

This directly implies that once you are discovered, you are no longer hidden.

You can't hide from a creature who can see you, and if you make noise...you give away your position.​

Another clear statement that defines when you are discovered.

It also states that the DM might allow you to stay hidden...(if) a creature is distracted.
​

An example of an exception to the "you can't hide if your position is known" rule. The statement immediately prior specifically states that "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger..." so simply being in the midst of a combat doesn't qualify as a distraction. But it also indicates that there are circumstances where you still can attempt to hide

Now for invisibility, even if the opponent knows where you are you still have advantage to attack (per the condition). The logic for this is that even though you know their position, you can't see the attack coming. You don't know exactly when or from what direction it's coming. Is it a sword from the left, right, above? The invisible creature can see you and can easily modify it's tactics to hit you easier. Thus, advantage.

That's the major difference between invisibility and being hidden. It's also why the rules specifically state that always have advantage on your attacks when invisible, even if your opponent knows where you are.

With the halfling, the first attack, when you have no idea he's there, he can attempt to hide behind an ally. If successful he's hidden and has the advantage.

Once you know where the halfling is, you will be watching more carefully because you expect him to attack again from behind the fighter. And when he does that to make his attack, then you CAN see him. So he's no longer hidden, just concealed or obscured. He's probably harder to hit, but doesn't have an advantage to attack anymore.

Having advantage grants somewhere between a +4 and +5 to your attack. That's a hefty bonus and reflects that you actually have a significant advantage due to the circumstances.

So now the fighter throws sand into the eyes of the wizard while the halfling fakes starting to run behind a pillar across the room. Instead he quickly doubles back and hides behind the fighter again.

Of course a tactic like this would also only work a couple of times at most against any semi-intelligent opponent.

Now I would expect that there might be a Hide in Plain Sight ability for, say, a shadow. Something like:

Hide in Plain Sight: Shadows are so adept at blending into other shadows that they can attempt to hide even when they can be seen or their position is known.

So I agree completely, the rules are very clear. Once you can be seen or your position is known, you can't attempt to hide unless circumstances change. It's up to the DM to determine when those circumstances change, but for me stepping behind an ally isn't enough of a change in circumstances to allow another attempt.

Randy

 

[transtemporal]

Even when a rule is perfectly clear to you, someone out there will claim it's unclear, and sometimes they can make enough noise to spur some kind of clarification.

Yeah, you see this all the time in MMOs, which inevitably morphs into: "X class is too powerful and must be nerfed" usually followed with "or me and my huge guild will leave the game because I'm terribly important." The problem is if you get enough people who hate that class, eventually the developer thinks it must be reasonable because so many people are talking about it, and nerf it.

And to be honest, I've been drawn into that hysteria too. Someone posts an incendiary screenshot of some ungodly amount of damage with no context and the title "Ha ha, thieves rule PvP" and even reasonable folks are suddenly drawn into the rabid, pitchfork-toting mob. Its not revealed until later the damage was done with stars-aligned buffs under ideal conditions and its basically a 1 in 1000 hit... lol

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hey, what do you know? Here's an ability from one of the monsters in Lost Mine of Phandelver:

False Appearance: While it remains motionless...it can hide without being out of sight.

So this is another exception to the rule that you cannot hide if you can be seen.

Also, the giant spider's Web Sense: While in contact with a web, the spider knows the exact location of any other creature in contact with the same web.

While this doesn't specifically mention hidden creatures, the only real benefit to this ability would be that you would be unable to hide from the spider while touching its web.

Randy

 

[TDarien]

Hey, what do you know? Here's an ability from one of the monsters in Lost Mine of Phandelver:

False Appearance: While it remains motionless...it can hide without being out of sight.

So this is another exception to the rule that you cannot hide if you can be seen.

Also, the giant spider's Web Sense: While in contact with a web, the spider knows the exact location of any other creature in contact with the same web.

While this doesn't specifically mention hidden creatures, the only real benefit to this ability would be that you would be unable to hide from the spider while touching its web.

Randy

I think what people aren't getting that there are two possible states in combat. Either a creature knows your position, or you're hidden from it. There isn't another possibility. This has nothing to do with whether you can be seen or not, except that, under most circumstances, in order to become hidden, you have to be out of the target's sight.

If you're hidden, and your discovered (the target beats your stealth with its perception, the target moves to a position where they can see you make a noise, or, you make an attack), your state just reverts to what is was, the target knows your position. Nothing prevents you from hiding again, so long as you meet the requirements to hide--Not being seen or heard.
Now, when you hide, a creature knows the position it last saw you in, and if there's not a lot of places to go, it can guess pretty well where you are. However, it can't know for sure, because you're hidden. You could have moved somehow(if you weren't hidden it would know, because it was aware of you), but it can't be sure unless it finds your position again, (which might be as easy as moving to a place where you're not obscured anymore).


The examples you give are just further exceptions. In the case of False appearance, you only need to remain motionless, not out of sight. With the spider, you can't hide from it if you're in its web. However, they don't change the fact that you are either hidden from another creature, or it knows your position.

 

[Joe Liker]

The Hide action doesn't have "memory", as you put it, but the creature does. To suggest otherwise to me would be like a character saying "I cast Suggestion on the orcs" and the DM responding "well, the rules don't explicitly say that orcs can hear, so the spell fails." So the fact that you were discovered is completely relevant, if you don't vacate the spot where you were discovered. I can think of no logical reason why a creature would need to make a Perception check to find you in the place it already thinks you are, unless you're not actually there.

Invisibility is a weird case for this discussion. Mechanically, the only reason to Hide while invisible is to get away, which implies movement. You already attack with advantage, so hiding doesn't add anything combat-wise. That said... yes, absolutely, in my game you'd have to move to take the Hide action if you position as been revealed, for it to have any narratively meaningful result. Otherwise, what happens? The creature has to make a Perception check to attack the spot where it already noticed you and thinks you are still? I'm not saying you'd have to move across the room... just not be in the same place you were, even if it's just a side-step. In fact, that's the most logical action, to get the attacker focused on the wrong space, which is again, why invisibility is a weird case (Even in the rules it mentions "signs of it's passage" when talking about hiding and invisibility.)

I wouldn't call that a "great" example, unless you meant to prove my point If the character teleported, he moved! If he didn't move, then he's exactly where the enemy expects him! So why should he get Advantage for that? If for some bizarre reason the attacker thinks "There's a small chance he might have been a high enough level wizard that he teleported away", then the attacker would ... what? Drop his guard as he comes to attack you? Look somewhere else as he rounds the tree? Your example is also completely true if the character doesn't take the Hide action, but merely stands behind a tree out of sight. Does he get Advantage then when the attackers move to the tree where they know he is because of the exact same uncertainty? If all it takes is a tiny amount of uncertainty to allow a character Advantage, wouldn't the fighter have Advantage on all his attacks, because the enemy never knows where the next sword swing is going to come from?

To me "Hide" implies to conceal your actual location from the enemy, which you simply can't do if they know where you are and you stay there. You have to be somewhere else, which takes movement if you've already been discovered. You get advantage when you're attacking from where they don't expect you, like if you climbed up or slunk into the tall grass when you were out of sight behind the tree.

I've been re-reading the various sections quoted multiple times as I've gone through this thread, and I can see that the strict rules interpreters are going to stand by the "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you" phrase in the "Hiding" sidebar. To me, that's an incredibly obvious statement, but not necessarily exclusive. There's obviously situations for me (and a ... sadly... seemingly minority of other posters) that also logically preclude a Hiding attempt. Guess that's why I'm glad for the leaning toward "Rulings not rules" in this edition.

I think what we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules mean by "hide." You seem to be bringing all kinds of real-world preconceptions into the discussion, to the detriment of your own clarity. The clause in boldface is the thing you have absolutely wrong, and is the reason for about 85 percent of this entire thread's discussion.

You seem to think that when someone hides, it means other creatures don't know where he is, or suddenly forget where he is, or will having trouble locating him even if they look in the right place. You seem to think that when a character gains the mechanical advantages of being hidden, it forces all the other creatures present to start acting illogically.

None of that is true.

When you are hidden, other characters can:

• remember where they last saw you
• move toward that spot, attack that spot, run away from that spot, etc.
• cause you to become unhidden by gaining direct line of sight to you

As these illustrate, your position -- and enemy knowledge of your position -- are entirely irrelevant to hiding. Hiding isn't about that. The rules do not care one bit whether the enemy is aware of you. That's a totally different, unrelated concept, dealt with in the metagame sense by the DM and his understanding of what the creatures know and perceive.

That's why you don't need to move to hide. Because your position doesn't matter, beyond the fact that you need some intervening cover. All that matters is that you are out of sight and quiet. Why? Because hiding doesn't erase memories; it only grants advantage.

You mentioned narrative meaning -- that's a big part of the misunderstanding. The "rules definition" of hiding doesn't carry the same weight as the "narrative definition." The DM adjudicates what monsters know and how they act based on the narrative definition. What you can accomplish in a fight is determined by the "rules definition." It's best to try to keep them separated in your mind.

 

[Hjorimir]

Hide action?

Quick question for those more read up on the basic rules. Can you attempt to hide after you've made your attack? Or does it basically require your "standard" action (I'm not sure what terminology is used to track actions in 5e)?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Very interesting discussion. First off it's clear that different DM's will adjudicate this situation differently. That's one of the things I love about the 5th edition so far, and why it reminds me so much of the first and early second editions. The DM (and the players) can interpret the rules in the manner they see fit.

So here's my 2 cp.

Trenstemporal says "it can't be any clearer" and I agree:

Naturally Stealthy doesn't say you CAN hide even when obscured by a creature at least one size larger than you.

It says you can ATTEMPT to hide in that circumstance. There's a big difference. The halfling is so stealthy he can even hide behind somebody else, something that nobody else can do. BUT, the attempt still has to be successful.

So yes, very clear. But you have to succeed in that attempt to actually hide. So when anybody tries to hide, we've got to look at the actual rules for hiding:

When you try (attempt) to hide...​

So this covers all attempts to hide, whether by special ability or not.

Until you are discovered or you stop hiding...
​

This directly implies that once you are discovered, you are no longer hidden.

You can't hide from a creature who can see you, and if you make noise...you give away your position.​

Another clear statement that defines when you are discovered.

It also states that the DM might allow you to stay hidden...(if) a creature is distracted.
​

An example of an exception to the "you can't hide if your position is known" rule. The statement immediately prior specifically states that "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger..." so simply being in the midst of a combat doesn't qualify as a distraction. But it also indicates that there are circumstances where you still can attempt to hide

Now for invisibility, even if the opponent knows where you are you still have advantage to attack (per the condition). The logic for this is that even though you know their position, you can't see the attack coming. You don't know exactly when or from what direction it's coming. Is it a sword from the left, right, above? The invisible creature can see you and can easily modify it's tactics to hit you easier. Thus, advantage.

That's the major difference between invisibility and being hidden. It's also why the rules specifically state that always have advantage on your attacks when invisible, even if your opponent knows where you are.

With the halfling, the first attack, when you have no idea he's there, he can attempt to hide behind an ally. If successful he's hidden and has the advantage.

Once you know where the halfling is, you will be watching more carefully because you expect him to attack again from behind the fighter. And when he does that to make his attack, then you CAN see him. So he's no longer hidden, just concealed or obscured. He's probably harder to hit, but doesn't have an advantage to attack anymore.

Having advantage grants somewhere between a +4 and +5 to your attack. That's a hefty bonus and reflects that you actually have a significant advantage due to the circumstances.

So now the fighter throws sand into the eyes of the wizard while the halfling fakes starting to run behind a pillar across the room. Instead he quickly doubles back and hides behind the fighter again.

Of course a tactic like this would also only work a couple of times at most against any semi-intelligent opponent.

Now I would expect that there might be a Hide in Plain Sight ability for, say, a shadow. Something like:

Hide in Plain Sight: Shadows are so adept at blending into other shadows that they can attempt to hide even when they can be seen or their position is known.

So I agree completely, the rules are very clear. Once you can be seen or your position is known, you can't attempt to hide unless circumstances change. It's up to the DM to determine when those circumstances change, but for me stepping behind an ally isn't enough of a change in circumstances to allow another attempt.

Randy

I agree, and kudos to you for typing it all out!

The saddest thing about the complex/unclear? hiding rules is that the very first battle in the starter set has hiding possibilities in it with the bonus action hide goblins... Of all the ways to christen a new group/DM to Dnd combat... *shakes head*