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

[lall]

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."

So assuming no distraction, you usually can't stay hidden if you approach the target.

If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

This states that you can hide and still attack (while hidden). Most players who hide and don't have the wood elf ability, Skulker, etc., would be using cover to hide. So one could assume this passage includes folks who are using cover to hide. We know that if there is total cover between you and the target, you can't even make the attack (pg. 196). Jiving pg. 195 with pg. 177, one could conclude that a pop-up or pop-out (to get out from behind the total cover) is allowed and that you are still hidden at that point. However, if you then start to approach, you are no longer hidden unless there is a distraction.

 

[Uller]

There is no rule that allows you to automatically stay hidden if the enemy can see you if they look in your direction. If I am wrong please cite the rule.

There is also no rule that says if you are hiding and at some point an enemy gains LOS to you he automatically spots you.

All it says is you cannot begin hiding from an enemy that can see you.

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.

Note that does not say "until a creature has line of sight to you"

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you,

...is not the same as "if you are already hidden and a creature can see you you are no longer hidden."

...if you come out of hiding and approach
a creature, it usually sees you.

Is a far cry different than saying "if you peek out of hiding a creature with LOS automatically spots you."

 

[pemerton]

You're narrowly constraining the phrase 'you can't hide when you are being watched'

<snip>

The phrase 'you can't hide when belng observed' means what it does in the plain English meaning of the phrase, not in a DnD game mechanic sense.

Upthread you said there was no ambiguity. Now you are quibbling interpretations with me! Which is to say, the rules bear multiple interpretations. Which is to say, they are ambiguous!

If you want more evidence, look at the ten-to-twenty posts above this one, where you will see posters of good will disagreeing over the circumstances in which hiding is possible, the circumstance in which the hidden status may be maintained once it has been achieved, the circumstances in which a character may gain advantage for attacking while hidden, etc.

That is more evidence that the rules are ambiguous.

And they needn't be. It is possible to write clear rules about stealth, and to shift the burden of adjudication off the rules text and onto the fiction (4e is an example of this). The rules should be written so that the GM has to arbitrate who is distracted, and who has the benefit of concealment/obscurement. But they shouldn't be written so as to cause the sorts of debates that are taking place in this thread, which aren't debates about the proper adjudication of ingame situations, but rather are debates about the basic parameters of the mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you,

...is not the same as "if you are already hidden and a creature can see you you are no longer hidden."

Actually, it can be.

There are two perfectly sound interpretations of the English sentence "You can't hide from a creature that can see you." The first reads the word "hide" as denoting an event of becoming hidden. The second reads the word "hide" as denoting the ongoing state of being hidden.

On the first reading, the sentence means "You can't become hidden from a creature that can see you." This leaves it open that perhaps, having become hidden, you might remain hidden from a creature that can see you.

On the second reading, the sentence means "You cannot remain hidden from a creature that can see you."

Now you obviously prefer the first reading. And there is probably good reason to prefer it - both of common sense, and implications that arise from other rules text (eg the stuff about approaching people and remaining hidden if they are distracted - although that is not knock-down evidence, because one could say that being distracted means they can't see you: after all, one consequence of a successful Stealth check is that you can't be seen!).

But the first reading is not self-evident. The second reading is a completely permissible construal of the English sentence. In other words, the rules are ambiguous.

 

[Aimian_Silverflash]

There is also no rule that says if you are hiding and at some point an enemy gains LOS to you he automatically spots you.

All it says is you cannot begin hiding from an enemy that can see you.

Incorrect. P. 177 says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you,"

This statement is continuous. It is not dependent on actions, status or time. If you're out in the open, with no cover, there is adequate lighting, and the monster is not distracted in any way, you. will. be. seen. End of story.

The same section goes on to describe situations that might go against this at the DM's discretion, but it most definitely is not black and white, like you claim.

Once again, Hide skill is NOT invisibility.

 

[Uller]

the rules are ambiguous.

Yep. They could definitely be written better to at least cover the most common general cases both in combat and out of combat. Warmaster Horus does a nice job about 20 posts back.

The way we do it at our table is simple: If you are out of sight, you may use an action to hide. When something happens that might cause you to be revealed (a creature moves to have line of sight but you are still obscured in some way, you peek out to attack, etc), that is when you make the check and the DM determines advantage/disadvantage and if the check is even necessary depending on circumstances. It's worked pretty well so far.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The fact here has been soooo many threads on hiding demonstrates each table needs to discuss it before they begin their campaign, so that there are no misunderstandings later - especially for any potential rogue players. If anything needs a Sage Advice or an UA, it's hiding.

 

[pemerton]

The way we do it at our table is simple: If you are out of sight, you may use an action to hide. When something happens that might cause you to be revealed (a creature moves to have line of sight but you are still obscured in some way, you peek out to attack, etc), that is when you make the check and the DM determines advantage/disadvantage and if the check is even necessary depending on circumstances. It's worked pretty well so far.

Sounds reasonable.

For my part, I like 4e's stealth rules which are similar to what you describe, but not identical.

I've got nothing against [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]'s approach either, or [MENTION=6787918]Aimian_Silverflash[/MENTION], who clearly prefers the second of the two readings I identified above in my earlier reply to you.

My point is a meta- one: the rules are ambiguous, and I think obviously so, and so posts which assert that other posters are obviously doing it wrong, or have obviously misread the rules, are pretty pointless.

 

[Uller]

Incorrect. P. 177 says "You can't hide from a creature that can see you,"

This statement is continuous. It is not dependent on actions, status or time. If you're out in the open, with no cover, there is adequate lighting, and the monster is not distracted in any way, you. will. be. seen. End of story.

The same section goes on to describe situations that might go against this at the DM's discretion, but it most definitely is not black and white, like you claim.

Once again, Hide skill is NOT invisibility.

And who said it was? Read Warmaster Horus's post again...there is a huge difference between peeking around a corner and stepping out into the open. We're talking about peeking around a corner or peering through brush. If you are hidden and peek around a corner, you "can be seen". Are you saying that when you do you are automatically spotted? If so...why have any rules for hiding at all because it seems unlikely anyone will ever be able to hide and do something useful except maybe avoid being attacked.

And no...stepping out from cover is in no way going to cause you to automatically be seen. Just a few minutes ago I was changing a smoke detector battery in my daughter's room...she walked past in the hall. I wasn't even trying to hide and she didn't notice me there. I could have reached right through the door and smacked her (attack with advantage anyone). Instead, I just said "boo!" and startled her.

Keep that in mind and reread the rule on page 177...note the paragraph that says "In combat..." It is specifically talking about in combat and not in other situations (like a person walking down a hall in their "lair" and feeling unthreatened).

So yeah...in combat a nondistracted creature will spot you if you come out of cover (completely) and approach. No one is arguing that that is not true. But peering around a corner or taking a shot from cover and the like is not at all the same as that.

 

[Uller]

The fact here has been soooo many threads on hiding demonstrates each table needs to discuss it before they begin their campaign, so that there are no misunderstandings later - especially for any potential rogue players. If anything needs a Sage Advice or an UA, it's hiding.

But then we'd have to go back to arguing about whether or not damage on a miss is functionally the same as damage on a successful save.