D&D 5E Attacking from Stealth. When you can / cant Hide - A thorough breakdown

[pming]

Hiya.

If the rules were not vague and not crystal clear to everyone, then why did you feel compelled to write up a long post on it?

An Orc is strolling down a trail and not actively searching.

A Rogue is hiding in light obscurement.

1a) Does the Orc get a passive perception vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?
1b) Or does the Orc get a passive perception (at -5 for light obscurement) vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?
1c) If so and the Rogue cannot hide behind cover, during what type of hiding does the Orc get a normal passive perception vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?

1a = Yes.
1b & 1c = Irrelevant. The Rogue gets to actually make a Stealth roll because he's trying to hide in the bushes. Without bushes, he'd be standing in plain sight and the orc would see him, obviously. In this case, I'd rule that the "light obscurement" doesn't impose any disadvantage to the orc...it simply gives the rogue somewhere to hide in the first place. Now, add in a light fog/mist...now the rogue gets the light obscurement benefit (e.g., the orc has Disadvantage/-5 to his detection chances). Is this "as per the rules"? *shrug* Doesn't really matter does it? As long as I (the DM) am consistent in how I rule this, my game will run just fine.

Now a different Orc shouts out that someone is in the bushes. The Orc is now warned and alert, but the Rogue is still hidden from this Orc (but not the other Orc).

2a) Does the first Orc now get a perception check vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?
2b) Or does the first Orc get a disadvantaged perception check due to lightly obscured vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?

2a = Yes. He's now actively looking, not passively.
2b = Nope. Hiding in the bushes actually gives the rogue a roll in the first place; ignore the whole "lightly obscured" rules as written for this because otherwise it would be silly and make no sense. Luckily, I'm human and can think "outside the box".

If you answer:

1a) Yes.
1b) No.
1c) Then you need no answer for 1c.
2a) Yes.
2b) No.

Then you are ignoring the lightly obscured rules for disadvantage.

Not really...I'm just interpreting them differently. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

If you answer:

1a) Yes.
1b) No.
1c) Then you need no answer for 1c.
2a) No.
2b) Yes.

Then it's harder to find someone when you know that they are there than if you do not know they are there.

As I'm interpreting this situations "light obscurement" differently, these rules aren't going to apply as the are written, so...uh...

If you answer:

1a) No.
1b) Yes.
1c) Then you need an answer for 1c.
2a) No.
2b) Yes.

Then you need an answer for 1c. If the Rogue cannot hide behind cover (like a chair) as you claimed, when can he hide and have normal passive perception rolls against his stealth?

I guess whenever he has something to hide behind? I mean, if someone is trying to interpret semi-vague rules as strictly as possible, that person is going to be exceedingly frustrated. If a rule is "vague" then it needs to be treated that way; you can't treat it as "iron-clad" or a "yes/no". Pretty much all of 5e is written with this "DM/Player interpretation" rule style. The Stealth rules are, as Mearls said, written that way on purpose; that purpose being for individual DM's to decide the specifics simply because there are FAR to many variables to write rules that would work in every situation in a RPG. A DM can adapt to the situation...rules written on the printed page can not. It really is that simple.

Or is your answer that he cannot hide behind cover or behind lightly obscured areas, and can only hide while invisible or behind total cover or behind heavily obscure areas? If so, then hiding really sucks.

Sorry, but this stuff is still vague. If you could clear up these particular questions, I would appreciate it because I have been scratching my head over them.

Stop scratching your head about it. Think about how you want them to work in your game and implement them that way. If they don't work for you, change them until they do. This may be as simple as copy/pasting rules from some other d20 supplement/game that you DO like...or maybe you will need to write some stuff out yourself for your campaigns house rules.

I keep seeing threads about Stealth/Hiding, and, as I've said a million times before...stop thinking in 3.x/PF/4e terms. In those games, you had rules with pages of modifiers, with yes/no specifics, and then you had a bajillion exceptions that broke those "iron clad" rules/modifications in terms of spells, feats, class abilities, powers, etc. In short, there was a LOT of wasted time, effort and space trying to codify "stealth" rules and then find ways to break/ignore them. Why bother in the first place? IMHO, 5e's "vague" rules are infinitely better than having 5 pages of modifiers to a die roll and another 3 pages dedicated to exceptions. With 5e, the premiere rule is this: "If you're confused, ask your DM. If you're the DM and can't find something or something doesn't make sense, make it up".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ExploderWizard]

For quick easy hiding, just use the Big Trouble in Little China rule

QUICK HIDE! THEY ONLY SAW ME!

In that situation, Jack Burton couldn't hide from Lo Pan's army of henchmen because they had just clearly seen him, even though he immediately shut the door blocking line of sight.

That is what I think of when a rogue wants to hide from an enemy that clearly knows that he/she is there.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not in combat, a rogue doesn't need ANY coverage to hide. He can simply hide, and when the opponent approaches the rogue compares his Stealth (Dexterity) to their Passive Perception. If there is light obscurement, the Passive Perception is reduced by 5.

So if I am understanding this, he can hide behind all 5 things:

1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, full cover, light obscurement, heavy obscurement

Then it becomes a matter of the Stealth / Perception checks (passive in the case of not actively searching) when a foe comes along.


So then, here is the weirdness that this is leading up to:

When the Rogue is behind full cover or heavy obscurement, nobody is going to find him with some sort of perception check unless he makes noise or unless the NPC have advanced senses like a keen sense of smell. He cannot be seen.

But in the case of 1/2 cover, 3/4 cover, and light obscurement, there are only special hiding rules for light obscurement.

It's just as easy to hide behind a small boulder as it is to hide behind a large boulder.

It's easier to hide behind some bushes (disadvantage) than it is some boulders.


So here is where some of my disconnect is. Bushes are easier to hide behind than large boulders which are the same chance to hide behind as smaller boulders (assuming that the DM states that the bushes are light obscurement, the larger boulders are 3/4 cover, and the smaller boulders are 1/2 cover).

The Rogue should never hide behind boulders if there are bushes nearby.

The Rogue should never hide behind a chair if there is fog nearby, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not really...I'm just interpreting them differently. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Well, they do clearly state that this what happens. Disadvantage when making checks that rely on sight in lightly obscured areas.

You effectively just took my disconnect and said "Ignore the rule because you have a disconnect with it".

 

[KarinsDad]

There is a roll necessary. The rogue is still invisible. If he does not move, I would require an active perception check. (Advantage for knowing what to look for cancelling disadvantage for light obscurement.)

Seems pretty easy to make rulings.

In your example above: The passive perception has always to be beaten by the rogue when he tries to hide. If he does not move I would give disadvantage to the orc (-5 to passive perception) because he needs to rely on sight to detect the PC. If the hidden creture moves, the orc has its normal passive perception as a defense vs stealth, as the rogue also tries to be silent.

Yes, now that I understand that one would use the Working Together rule, this makes sense.

 

[Nebulous]

For quick easy hiding, just use the Big Trouble in Little China rule

QUICK HIDE! THEY ONLY SAW ME!

In that situation, Jack Burton couldn't hide from Lo Pan's army of henchmen because they had just clearly seen him, even though he immediately shut the door blocking line of sight.

That is what I think of when a rogue wants to hide from an enemy that clearly knows that he/she is there.

I'm pretty sure that's a feat called "Burton Evasion"

 

[KarinsDad]

So 'in combat' repeated hiding seems to work under only 3 conditions : You're a Lightfoot Halfing, you're a wood elf, or you have the Skulker feat.

I think I will talk to my DM about Heavily Obscured and Full Cover. If they cannot see or target you, you should be able to hide (i.e. they know that you are in the area, just like the Orc example), but they just do not know exactly where. If one foe is then actively searching for exactly where you are, then Perception vs Stealth (if once he comes behind the total cover or heavily obscured, you still have some form of cover or obscurement). If two or more foes come actively searching, then it is the Working Together rule.

I am totally fine with a PC re-hiding as long as it makes sense.

Simple example. Huge Desk. Total cover for anyone prone behind it. In combat, the Rogue dives behind the desk, and then sneaks into the little dark place where the chair normally goes. Now, that is a pretty likely hiding place for someone actively searching. But, combat is going on and things happen quickly. So, one of the foes saw the Rogue dive in behind the desk in the last round. So, that foe moves around behind the desk. At that point as DM, I would have it be perception vs. stealth if there are other places to hide (i.e. other furniture). If the foe misses that roll and then uses his action to actively search, then he would get another advantaged perception.

The concept that one needs to be some special race or have a special feat in order to hide mid-combat seems strange in D&D. Not that it should be easy to hide in combat, it should not. Only in perfect storm situations (like the one with the Desk and other furniture around) should there even be a chance.

If there is just a large desk there and nothing else to hide behind, then it doesn't make sense.


And this solves the Lightfoot Halfling thing too (at least in my mind) which there were several threads on. He cannot just re-hide in combat behind a larger PC unless the DM rules that he can (typically first round before foes know where he is). Once he attacks, everyone knows where he is. But there will be times in combat when he can re-hide, but they would tend to be rare. He would need to be totally unseen again (go invisible, go behind total cover, etc.) in order to hide again.


And I get this super literal "if the PC can be seen (even his big toe), he cannot hide at all" concept that some people seem to have. That's what DMs are for. To adjudicate rules.

If a PC can be totally unseen and unheard in combat, then it resets the clock so to speak (at least this is what I will be discussing with the DM). He goes behind total cover and then goes into lightly obscured and hides, the NPC that goes looking for him still needs to find him because he re-hid out of sight of the NPC.

 

[fjw70]

Not in combat, a rogue doesn't need ANY coverage to hide. He can simply hide, and when the opponent approaches the rogue compares his Stealth (Dexterity) to their Passive Perception. If there is light obscurement, the Passive Perception is reduced by 5.

Why doesn't the rogue need any coverage to hide in combat? I think I missed that rule?

 

[Dausuul]

My take on KD's questions...

An Orc is strolling down a trail and not actively searching.

A Rogue is hiding in light obscurement.

Normally this is not possible, but I will assume the rogue is a wild elf hiding in a patch of mist, or has the Skulker feat and is standing in shadows, or something like that.

1a) Does the Orc get a passive perception vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?

Yes. Under most circumstances you can't even attempt stealth unless you're unseen. Therefore detecting a stealthy creature does not rely on sight, so there is no disadvantage for light obscurement.

(That said, Stealth normally applies when you're sneaking around. As DM I would be amenable to the argument that a rogue who is not moving should have advantage on the Stealth check.)

Now a different Orc shouts out that someone is in the bushes. The Orc is now warned and alert, but the Rogue is still hidden from this Orc (but not the other Orc).

2a) Does the first Orc now get a perception check vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?

Yes.

 

[KarinsDad]

My take on KD's questions...

Normally this is not possible, but I will assume the rogue is a wild elf hiding in a patch of mist, or has the Skulker feat and is standing in shadows, or something like that.

So, nobody can hide in bushes? Ever?