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

[Flamestrike]

The point you're trying to make (emphasis mine), while considered by many DMs as a logical interpretation, is not actually RAW.

It is RAW. Its an interpretation of RAW applying common sense.

Only two limitations are given by the official rules on stealth: You must not be seen or heard by the creature from which you're trying to hide.

Exactly. If I see you [move] behind a pillar you cant attempt to hide [Hide action] once you get there, despite the fact I can no longer see you.

You're artificially parsing the movement and actions of a players turn (and a turn and a round is itself an artificial parsing of consecutive action).

If there are several pillars in a room, and I turn my back to you, you can use your movement to move behind one and attempt the Hide action (attempt to hide). If I am watching you, you cant. I mean you can move behind a pillar and gain total cover, but you cant hide from me once you're there (barring outliers like the ability to teleport elsewhere from behind total cover on your turn so I didn't actually see you go into hiding).

Whether or not that creature was able to see you immediately before you broke line of sight or how certain it is or isn't about your current position is not touched upon by the RAW.

It is by omission. The rules dont state 'you must be unseen to attempt the Hide action'. They state that creatures are generally alert to creatures around them in combat, and you cant attempt to hide from a creature that is alert to you.

This isn't garbled rules language. Its just common sense plain English language.

Its like Hide and Seek. The 'seeker' closes his eyes for a reason. If he kept them open and watched you crawl under a bed and 'hide' you are not actually hidden.

If OTOH you did so while his eyes were closed, you are actually hidden.

So, while your interpretation is certainly a logical one, it's technically a houserule (or ruling, however you want to call it), and not one you can rely on with every DM and table.

Its not a houserule. Its a common sense interpretation of the RAW and the guidelines for hiding.

In any event, 'Your DM determines when you can attempt to Hide' is expressly RAW as of the second printing onwards, so 'Ask your DM' is the RAW.

 

[fjw70]

Flamestrike you are confusing someone thinking they know where you are and not being hidden. If I see a creature move behind a pillar and they take the hide action then I no longer perceive them. That creature could have hid or could have teleported away. I don't know for sure. If the creature just moves behind the pillar without hiding then I could still perceive them. I could possibly hear them or see some dust that they kick up.

i think the reason this happens is because DMs house rule to allow someone to reveal themselves (I.e. Lean around the pillar in this case) and still get the hidden bonus of advantage. If you take away that house rule then the rules make more sense.

Lets look at another example. If a creature moves into a shadowy area and I see them move into that area then they can still try to hide. Once hidden I don't know if they're stayed in the same space they hid in or moved to another shadowy space (I am using shadowy to mean completely cloak in darkness).

 

[Dausuul]

It is RAW. Its an interpretation of RAW applying common sense.

If it's your interpretation, then it ain't RAW. RAW is "Rules As Written." It's what's there in black and white on the page, not what seems like common sense to you.

And your interpretation is far from the only "common-sensical" way to interpret the rules. One could just as easily argue that you can hide behind the pillar, but you cease to be hidden as soon as the enemy gains line of sight to you (e.g., by walking around the pillar). In fact, that would be my preferred interpretation; otherwise you get into all kinds of weird quantum debates about when the creature's knowledge of your presence can no longer keep you from hiding.

 

[nswanson27]

I've seen the video arguing as much about limiting repeated hiding checks. The problem with the way it was presented is that it tacitly assumes it's just the rogue vs. enemy, which is usually not the case. If a paladin is up in the enemy's face, that definitely should merit the rogue hiding when out of sight whenever IMO.

 

[BoldItalic]

"Masster! Masster! There are ad-vent-urers in the outer dungeon!" squealed the kobold, wringing its paws and looking around for a place to hide. The Master could be cruel when displeased, and The Master had not eaten today.

"Adventurers?" thundered an inhuman voice, "What manner of men intrudes on my domain? Or is it elves? We detest elves!"

"N-no, M-Master, it is hobbitses! Sneaky, Creepy, Hidey, hobbitses!"

The Master's gaze flickered and left the kobold for a moment. It took its chance and fled. Steely cold, The Voice gave orders to an orc who stood sentry nearby. "Open the gates to the lower level and release the bloodhounds."

"Yargh," grunted the orc and left to carry out his orders, boots squeaking as it receded into the gloom.

"And you," the Master added, jabbing a tentacle at a deformed gnome who was squatting behind his throne, "Bring me my Necklace of fireballs".

Hide all you like, little burglar. Bloodhounds can smell you round corners. And fireballs don't need to see you, to burn your ears off.

 

[Flamestrike]

Flamestrike you are confusing someone thinking they know where you are and not being hidden.

That's because if you know where they are (and are objectively correct in that knowledge, as determined by the DM) they are not hidden from you.

If I see a creature move behind a pillar and they take the hide action then I no longer perceive them.

They cant take the Hide action if you saw them go behind the pillar. You saw them go into hiding. The rule is not 'You cant [take the Hide action] when you are being watched;' the rule is 'you cant [attempt to hide] when someone is aware of you and is watching you'.

Youre parsing the Hide action as thing in and of itself. The RAW doesnt do this. Its just a plain english statement of common sense.

Look, come to my house and 'hide' from me in my bedroom while I watch you crawl into your hiding spot (your choice of under my bed, the closet or behind the bookcase). We can repeat this experiment as often as we want, but I assure you at no stage will you be hidden from me (despite having total cover relative to me).

After a dozen or so attempts, lets try it again, only this time, I wont be observing you (Ill close my eyes and turn up the stereo), and you can hide anywhere in the room you want.

Its not that you're doing anything different each time when you Hide, but when I watch you go into hiding it's impossible for you to do so. When I'm not observing you go into hiding, it suddenly becomes possible.

That creature could have hid or could have teleported away.

And if they did teleport away after moving behind the pillar, then I would allow the Hide action to be taken (the observer was not watching them go into hiding in this case).

Its a general rule. If you see someone going into a hiding spot, they cant hide from you there. They might have total cover relative to you, but they arent hidden (in game terms they simply cannot take the Hide action - relative to you - once there).

I don't know for sure. If the creature just moves behind the pillar without hiding then I could still perceive them. I could possibly hear them or see some dust that they kick up.

Mate, if you know where someone or something is, and are objectively correct in that knowledge, then (even though it may have total cover relative to you) it is not (objectively speaking) hidden from you.

Total cover, heavy obscurement and even invisibility does not = hidden.

i think the reason this happens is because DMs house rule to allow someone to reveal themselves (I.e. Lean around the pillar in this case) and still get the hidden bonus of advantage.

Thats not a houserule. If a creature is hidden it can lean around the pillar and make an attack with the benefits of being hidden. After the attack is resolved (succesful or otherwise) the creature reveals itself and is no longer hidden (and generally cannot again become hidden as long as its being watched).

You walk into a room with a rogue hidden behind a pillar in the room. He pops up and shoots you gaining all the advantage of being hidden (advantage on the attack roll and sneak attack) and after this attack is resolved, he is no longer hidden.

From this point onwards the game assumes that you are now aware of him, and he cant generally attempt to hide again. Even if he ducks back behind the pillar, it doesnt matter (although he does gain total cover). You saw where he went, and (while he has total cover relative to you) barring some kind of extreme outlier (he teleports away behind the pillar behind you) he cant attempt the Hide action once behind the pillar again.

Lets look at another example. If a creature moves into a shadowy area and I see them move into that area then they can still try to hide.

No they cant (barring having the Skulker feat or being a Wood elf). They need heavy obscurement to hide, not shadows, and in any event if I am watching them go into their hiding spot, they cant attempt the Hide action when there.

If it's your interpretation, then it ain't RAW. RAW is "Rules As Written." It's what's there in black and white on the page, not what seems like common sense to you.

I dont want to get too postmodern on you, but there is no such thing as 'text in and of itself'. Every rule gets interpreted. And context gives meaning to words.

And your interpretation is far from the only "common-sensical" way to interpret the rules. One could just as easily argue that you can hide behind the pillar, but you cease to be hidden as soon as the enemy gains line of sight to you (e.g., by walking around the pillar).

If you're hidden, the enemy no longer knows where you are, and generally cant find you barring using the Search action.

 

[ammulder]

If you're hidden, the enemy no longer knows where you are, and generally cant find you barring using the Search action.

You lost me there, based on the examples you've been discussing.

If you enter a room with a rogue hidden behind a pillar, I think (hope?) we all agree that the rogue is hidden. But if you walk around the pillar such that the rogue is in plain sight? I wouldn't call for a Search check. Or the other example: if the rogue is Hiding under your bed, and you say "I look under the bed" I wouldn't call for a Search check.

I guess more likely if you enter a room with an invisible Rogue and say "I try to find whoever's in there" then maybe a Search check?

 

[Flamestrike]

You lost me there, based on the examples you've been discussing.

If you enter a room with a rogue hidden behind a pillar, I think (hope?) we all agree that the rogue is hidden.

Agreed.

But if you walk around the pillar such that the rogue is in plain sight? I wouldn't call for a Search check.

Similar to if you opened a box containing a hidden creature - you automatically spot it no roll needed.

Although you do need to take into account the stop/ start nature of turn based combat and give hidden creatures a little leeway. It would also be fair to assume the Rogue was moving around the pillar to keep in your blindspot as you walked around it.

Its case by case, subject to the DM.

Or the other example: if the rogue is Hiding under your bed, and you say "I look under the bed" I wouldn't call for a Search check.

Agreed.

I guess more likely if you enter a room with an invisible Rogue and say "I try to find whoever's in there" then maybe a Search check?

It would indeed be a perception check (via the search action if in combat) opposed by the Rogues stealth result (obtained via the Hide action if in combat) in this case.

 

[Dausuul]

I dont want to get too postmodern on you, but there is no such thing as 'text in and of itself'. Every rule gets interpreted. And context gives meaning to words.

Oh, please. This is like using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to argue the officer couldn't simultaneously know that you were in his jurisdiction and speeding, and therefore he can't give you a ticket. The inherent ambiguity of language is a thing, but it doesn't mean you can just make up your own rules and claim they're part of the Rules As Written.

If you're hidden, the enemy no longer knows where you are, and generally cant find you barring using the Search action.

If you're hidden, the enemy can't hear or see you, but can still remember you and make guesses about where you might be. Stealth is not a brain wipe.

 

[Flamestrike]

Oh, please. This is like using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to argue the officer couldn't simultaneously know that you were in his jurisdiction and speeding, and therefore he can't give you a ticket. The inherent ambiguity of language is a thing, but it doesn't mean you can just make up your own rules and claim they're part of the Rules As Written.

Im not making up anything. I'm pointing out your error.

You interpret the plain English phrase 'you cant attempt to hide from a creature that can see you' to mean 'you cant attempt [the Hide action] from a creature that can see you'.

Your interpretation is wrong.

If you're hidden, the enemy can't hear or see you, but can still remember you and make guesses about where you might be. Stealth is not a brain wipe.

Agreed, but that's not the argument here. The argument is when you can attempt to Hide in the first place. You argue that simply breaking LOS allows it. I disagree and argue that the word 'hidden' and 'you can only hide' carries with it the common sense plain English meaning the paragraph itself is written in (in accordance with 5Es avoidance of rules jargon), and not a rules jargon meaning of 'the hide action'.

When viewed in that light, the whole thing makes sense.