D&D 5E So.... hide?

[Warmaster Horus]

PHB, Pg. 177, Left Column under Hiding states:
"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."

PHB, Pg. 182, Right Column states:
"When travelling at a slow pace, the characters can move stealthily. As long as they're not in the open, they can try to surprise or sneak by other creatures they encounter."

So the player's basically says... ask your DM.

Obviously it should be considered that you are not approaching. You're just popping out to shoot. But you ARE popping out. In the open. Against an enemy that knows you were just there a second ago. Personally, I'd absolutely say you could get sneak attack damage, and get the re-hide. That's fairly cut-and-dry. The question is if you get advantage when you pop out again.

I'd personally say the enemy gets a perception check when you pop out, depending on the lighting, the amount of distractions, and if you've already peppered the same guy with one or more similar attacks from the exact same position. If there's really no reason for him to NOT be able to see you, then he sees you. And you don't get advantage. Simple as that.

Something to keep in mind about Hide this edition guys. It's not invisibility. Read pages 177 and 182 very carefully. There has to be environmental conditions that allow you to be hidden in order to become hidden and stay hidden.

And when he does pop out, as long as it's not in the clear, but from cover, it's his stealth check vs his opponent's perception. Hiding != Invisibility, it equals his skill against another's.

 

[eMalc]

I'm with everyone that doesn't see the issue here: How can you have an issue of realism with the Halfling Rogue having a decent ability to hide, yet not have any issue with Casters being able to alter reality?

As a Rogue player in a small party, I find the hiding both a useful tool and a careful consideration: The ability to take heat off myself is amazing, but at the same time it leaves the few other party members to take the brunt of the enemy assault most of the time.

As a DM of a game I just have to use a bit of common sense. A rogue hiding doesn't make them invisible, if I think one monster in combat is particularly perceptive enough to look out for where they run to hide next, there's nothing stopping me sending that monster off to search for, and presumably attack them.

 

[machineelf]

This is how I do it: If the rogue in my party was hiding already, let's say behind a tree in the forest, and pops out to make a sneak attack ranged arrow attack, then she can try to pop back behind the tree right afterward to essentially remain hidden. So that, the enemy knows an arrow came at them from that general area, but might not know where the archer is exactly. So I give the rogue disadvantage on trying to re-hide in that instance, contested by a perception check by the enemy. I might make it harder and harder for her to continue doing this during the course of the fight, but it might work for awhile.

However, if the enemy is smart, they will be looking in the general area where the arrow came from and ready some actions to fire back if anyone pops out from behind a tree. So the rogue in my group has to be aware of that possibility.

It seems to work well and smoothly.

 

[Flamestrike]

That's not the point of contention. I totally get that lightfoots can do that. The question is : can he hide after having been seen, and while still in view of the foe?

The confusion comes from the sentence 'you cant attempt to hide if you are being watched'. A lot of people treat the word 'hide' in that sentence as the game term (Hide action) instead of its plain english meaning. Which, of course makes the sentence a redundant one. Its akin to a sentence saying 'you cant move silently if people can hear you'.

The gamist reasoning thus goes: Once LOS is broken (by first moving into total cover or concealment on your turn) it is totally OK to then allow that creature the Hide action, regardless of the fact the enemy knows exactly where you are.

The common sense plain english reading of that sentence indicates you cant attempt to hide when you arent being observed by anyone. Simply popping into a box or behind a pillar in an otherwise empty room while under direct observation does not allow you to hide.

Ever played Hide and Seek? In order to be 'hidden' the seeker cant know where you are. If he watches you climb into your hiding spot, you arent hidden from anyone.

If you follow the gamist reasoning, common sense goes out the window. You can literally have a 2nd level Rogue carrying a cardboard box around, throwing it on the ground at the start of his first turn (in full view of the enemy) using his movement to climb in (gaining total concealment) a bonus action to hide (now that the enemy can no longer see him) followed by an action to pop out and attack (gaining advantage AND sneak attack on the attack). He could repeat this 'jack in the box' insanity every round.

If you follow the common sense interpretation none of these shennanigans are possible, and hiding works like it does in real life. Halfling rogues can hide behind the Fighter before triggering the encounter (when not in view of the enemy), and remain hidden as long as they want once the encounter is triggered (assuming the enemy fail Perception checks to spot the little bugger). The instant the Halfling pops out to attack (with advantage and sneak attack) his cover is blown (unless he misses AND has the Skulker feat, in which case he can attempt to hide again).

He might be able to hide again, but he will need to double back around to an unexpected spot, have the Skulker feat (as noted above), or use some other ingenious method (DM's call).

 

[lall]

Per common sense, no magic shenanigans either, with all that hand waving and shouting. DM's call to allow a rabbit to be pulled from a hat, but that's it.

 

[pemerton]

As I read the rules, one source of confusion is this: a necessary condition of being able to Hide is not being seen; but most of the time, the reason a player wants his/her PC to hide is so as to avoid being seen (and thereby get defensive advantages, ambush advantages, etc).

In the particular case of the halfling: the only way the rules make it crystal clear that s/he can't be seen if behind the larger fighter is if the Hide check succeeds; but the only way the Hide check is permitted is if s/he can't be seen behind the fighter.

Further complexity comes from the use of the word "obscured" - something can be oscured yet visible (eg if in dim light, patchy fog or behind moderate foliage). How does being obscured interact with the requirement that you can't hide from a creature that can see you? And how does the disadvantage on Perception checks to see lightly obscured things interact with the Hiding rules?

I agree with [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] - as written, it's a mess.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hiding is not just 'not being seen' (however that is a prerequisite).

When you have total cover or concealment you are not hidden. Even when you are invisible you are not hidden.

Hiding (and being hidden) imply something more than just 'not being seen'. It infers a state of mind in the person looking for you. If I know exactly where something is, it is not hidden from me (even though I may not be able to see it).

If a person runs into a an otherwise empty room and crawls into a box in full view of me, that person is in no way hidden from me. It may be different if that box contained a secret compartment that led to an underground tunnel that I was unaware of, and the person used this tunnel to double back around to a place that I didnt know he was there before hiding.

A DM is well within his rights to allow a person to re-enter hiding during an encounter even when he has already come out of hiding and revealed himself. By doubling back around to a different hiding position, or if the observer is suitably distracted or whatnot. But broadly speaking, once you reveal yourself in an encounter, that's it - they're aware of you, assumed to be keeping tabs on you, and thus no more hiding.

I encourage people in this thread to read the Skulker feat and apply some common sense.

 

[fjw70]

The confusion comes from the sentence 'you cant attempt to hide if you are being watched'. A lot of people treat the word 'hide' in that sentence as the game term (Hide action) instead of its plain english meaning. Which, of course makes the sentence a redundant one. Its akin to a sentence saying 'you cant move silently if people can hear you'.

The gamist reasoning thus goes: Once LOS is broken (by first moving into total cover or concealment on your turn) it is totally OK to then allow that creature the Hide action, regardless of the fact the enemy knows exactly where you are.

The common sense plain english reading of that sentence indicates you cant attempt to hide when you arent being observed by anyone. Simply popping into a box or behind a pillar in an otherwise empty room while under direct observation does not allow you to hide.

Ever played Hide and Seek? In order to be 'hidden' the seeker cant know where you are. If he watches you climb into your hiding spot, you arent hidden from anyone.

If you follow the gamist reasoning, common sense goes out the window. You can literally have a 2nd level Rogue carrying a cardboard box around, throwing it on the ground at the start of his first turn (in full view of the enemy) using his movement to climb in (gaining total concealment) a bonus action to hide (now that the enemy can no longer see him) followed by an action to pop out and attack (gaining advantage AND sneak attack on the attack). He could repeat this 'jack in the box' insanity every round.

If you follow the common sense interpretation none of these shennanigans are possible, and hiding works like it does in real life. Halfling rogues can hide behind the Fighter before triggering the encounter (when not in view of the enemy), and remain hidden as long as they want once the encounter is triggered (assuming the enemy fail Perception checks to spot the little bugger). The instant the Halfling pops out to attack (with advantage and sneak attack) his cover is blown (unless he misses AND has the Skulker feat, in which case he can attempt to hide again).

He might be able to hide again, but he will need to double back around to an unexpected spot, have the Skulker feat (as noted above), or use some other ingenious method (DM's call).

The rules don't allow the rogue to pop out of the box (thus revealing himself) and then attacking as though he was hidden.

 

[fjw70]

As I read the rules, one source of confusion is this: a necessary condition of being able to Hide is not being seen; but most of the time, the reason a player wants his/her PC to hide is so as to avoid being seen (and thereby get defensive advantages, ambush advantages, etc).

In the particular case of the halfling: the only way the rules make it crystal clear that s/he can't be seen if behind the larger fighter is if the Hide check succeeds; but the only way the Hide check is permitted is if s/he can't be seen behind the fighter.

Further complexity comes from the use of the word "obscured" - something can be oscured yet visible (eg if in dim light, patchy fog or behind moderate foliage). How does being obscured interact with the requirement that you can't hide from a creature that can see you? And how does the disadvantage on Perception checks to see lightly obscured things interact with the Hiding rules?

I agree with [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] - as written, it's a mess.

In the case of the Halfling his ability provides an exception to the requirement of not being seen before you can attempt to hide.

 

[cthulhu42]

Your cite of page 172 is not correct — it's an illustration — it's page 177 (sidebar)....

.

Thanks for the correction. Didn't have the book in front of me.