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

[Flamestrike]

I don't know. I'm not a rogue.

Lets assume its a commmoner hiding then.

In full view of the enemy, he walks behind a pillar in the middle of the room and (once behind the pillar and thus unseen) 'takes the hide action' making him hidden.

What exactly is he doing back there?

Possibly looking for something in the area behind the pillar he can lean up against to make himself less obvious.

How does 'looking around for something to lean up on' suddenly make him hidden behind that pillar?

And why does he need to do it out of sight?

Because one used an action to become hidden.

Exactly. Ridiculous gamist interpretation and justification which creates absurd results.

Now read the RAW again, this time interpreting the words 'hiding' not as 'the hide action,' but as the plain english version of the word.

If you do, you'll see that he cant take the Hide action behind the pillar because I saw him go into hiding. You cant hide from someone who is watching you. Walking behind a pillar is me watching you going into hiding. Hide action = prohibited. I mean, you can roll if you want and be really really quiet, but you are not hidden, and the enemy knows where you are.

There is nothing you can do behind that pillar that's going to make me forget you went there, render me confused or uncertain about your current location or presence, or make you in any way hidden.

You cant take the hide action when you're behind the pillar [I watched you walk behind], because I saw you go into hiding.

If I wasn't watching you go into your hiding spot, you could.

The phrase 'you cant hide when a creature can see you' is not the game saying 'you must break LOS to take the Hide action'; its just a plain English common bloody sense statement of 'It is generally impossible to go into hiding while being observed'.

Now they don't know where you are.

HOW?

What exactly are you doing behind the pillar to mind wipe object permanence from me? And why do they need to do it behind the pillar?

I mean, I'm happy to conduct this experiment in real life a hundred times over. You can crawl into a box (one of those cardboard removalist boxes will do) and close the lid, all while in full view of me.

I'll then let you 'take the hide action' as much as you want, once the lid is closed.

Lets see how often you become 'hidden' or how many times I suddenly forget you're inside the box, or even am rendered uncertain about whether you are actually in there or not.

Barring you building a secret trapdoor under the box and slinking off elsewhere, [i.e. going into hiding while NOT being observed] you are never going to be hidden from me.

 

[seebs]

Lets assume its a commmoner hiding then.

In full view of the enemy, he walks behind a pillar in the middle of the room and (once behind the pillar and thus unseen) 'takes the hide action' making him hidden.

What exactly is he doing back there?

This is not specified, and it doesn't need to be, any more than I need to know the exact strokes a fighter uses to "hit something with a sword".

He's doing the thing which converts an action into Being Hidden.

 

[Hriston]

I don't think that's right. Let me take a crack at it.

Lets assume its a commmoner hiding then.

In full view of the enemy, he walks behind a pillar in the middle of the room and (once behind the pillar and thus unseen) 'takes the hide action' making him hidden.

What exactly is he doing back there?

It sounds like he's rolling dice behind a really big DM screen.

Of course the question is complete nonsense if we assume the commoner isn't playing D&D, because 'taking the hide action' is something a D&D player does, rather than something a D&D character does, and it is only possible when the DM says it is. The character can go behind the pillar and do the exact same thing, and depending on circumstances, the DM may allow the Hide action or not.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is not specified, and it doesn't need to be, any more than I need to know the exact strokes a fighter uses to "hit something with a sword".

He's doing the thing which converts an action into Being Hidden.

How is he removing object permanence from me? You cant explain your argument and implicitly acknowledge it leads to an absurd result.

Surely this should be a massive red flag for you that your interpretation is wrong?

Now try reading the rules again, this time using plain English interpretation when you read the passage that states 'You cant hide when someone is watching you'.

As in: 'If you watch someone go into hiding, they cant hide from you' and not as in 'You cant take the Hide action unless you first break LOS'

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't think that's right. Let me take a crack at it.



It sounds like he's rolling dice behind a really big DM screen.

Of course the question is complete nonsense if we assume the commoner isn't playing D&D, because 'taking the hide action' is something a D&D player does, rather than something a D&D character does, and it is only possible when the DM says it is. The character can go behind the pillar and do the exact same thing, and depending on circumstances, the DM may allow the Hide action or not.

So.. it doesn't make any sense? Thats what I have been saying all along!

People are interpreting the sentence in the PHB 'You cant hide while being observed' as a rule of 'You can not [take the hide action] unless you first break LOS'.

That's not what that sentence is saying. Its not rules jargon. Its just saying that if someone is watching you going into hiding (moving behind a pillar or tree in order to attempt to hide from you) they cant hide from you in that spot because you saw them go there.

People are interpreting a common sense plain english phrase as some kind of rules jargon and getting absurd results as a consequence.

 

[ThePolarBear]

No, thats not what I meant at all. If thats what I meant, thats what I would have said.

Except that's exactly what you meant, since you made the example of a rogue under greater invisibility. But hey, who am i to see that your carpet statements are actually wrong, right?

For mine, the correct response is:

There's no correct response. There's no wrong response. There's DM adjudication.

Now read the RAW again, this time interpreting the words 'hiding' not as 'the hide action,' but as the plain english version of the word.

Let's do it!

--
"Hiding

The GM decides when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of a creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.

An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

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 GM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

Passive perception.

When you hide, there's a chance that someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the GM comppares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses"(sigh)" and penalities. If a creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.

What can you see?

One of the main factors in determining wheter you can fing a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in "The Environment"."
--


I do not see any mention of:

Walking behind a pillar is me watching you going into hiding. Hide action = prohibited.I mean, you can roll if you want and be really really quiet, but you are not hidden, and the enemy knows where you are.

I can walk behind a pillar, break los, take the hide action, be really quiet AS LONG AS THE DM ALLOWS ME TO DO IT. There's NOTHING that requires your position to be unknown. NOTHING. The only thing that my position is known affects is my probability of REMAINING hidden. And hiding, as per "Unseen attackers and targets" section: you are "hidden - both unseen and unheard -"

The problem is that, as a whole, the DM and the players have knowledge of all that is happening. The characters in game have not this luxury. A person runs behind a pillar and tries to hide. The pursuers have seen the person running behind a pillar and since there's no indication that there's something wrong except no particular sound or anything, rush to the last known position. They find the person. Or a dragon. Or a punch to the face. Or nothing at all.

Is it a STUPID action? Yes, yes it is. Is it allowed RAW? Yes, yes it is. It has consequences? Yes, yes it has.
What you are doing is akin to telling the player "no that is stupid you can't". Let them. If they want to jump into a fire, let them.

That is why there's the BIG difference in "popping out of cover". For your ruling, there are extra requirements for hiding that the base rules DO NOT REQUIRE AT ALL. And that's why popping out of cover is a "big deal" for someone else. It might be easier to find an hiding spot where someone might act in secrecy, but this also has a necessary corollary of not allowing every spot a combat relevance. A strict enforcing of "vision" is what does the job. You pass that job BEFORE the action can be even taken. Others enforce that to end the action.

There is nothing you can do behind that pillar that's going to make me forget you went there, render me confused or uncertain about your current location or presence, or make you in any way hidden.

You cant take the hide action when you're behind the pillar [I watched you walk behind], because I saw you go into hiding.

There's nothing you think i can do. There are MANY things that obtain such a result. Hiding is not one of those things. Nor it's an effect that anyone ever said hiding had.

you saw me go behing a pillar... AND?

The point of hiding is being hidden - unseen and unheard. The successfulness of that action is determined by a roll. The duration of such an action is determined by how smartly it was used. If you saw me going into hiding... i must be hiding, then. For a very short amount of time if i have no way to GTFrecklesO.

The phrase 'you cant hide when a creature can see you' is not the game saying 'you must break LOS to take the Hide action'; its just a plain English common bloody sense statement of 'It is generally impossible to go into hiding while being observed'.

In common english it means exactly what you read before it means anything else. The fact that over the course of revisions what you are saying has been REMOVED from the wording might mean that that what you are saying was, in fact, unintended or found to be problematic. Or, you know, a mistake, since humans are fallible. Either way it was added (since it was NOT in the first printing) and then removed (current errata no longer has that part). Make what you want out of that information.

So.. it doesn't make any sense? Thats what I have been saying all along!

It doesn't make sense if we assume that the COMMONER IS NOT PLAYING D&D. The second part is important. DM rolling dices. Your wording. A joke, i guess.
By the way, he also gets the important part. DM adjudication ftw.

People are interpreting the sentence in the PHB 'You cant hide while being observed' as a rule of 'You can not [take the hide action] unless you first break LOS'.

This part is true for you too. You just take another step forward. If this was not true for you, you could hide in plain sight.

 

[Flamestrike]

"Hiding

The GM decides when the circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of a creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.

Does not mean : You can't 'take the Hide action' from a creature that can see you clearly. It means what it means in the real world, common sense, plain English meaning of 'If you were actually here in front of me in this room IRL and I watch you crawl into a box, you cant hide there. You are not hidden. I know where you are cause I saw you go there. You cant hide from me if I watch you go into hiding.'.

'Hide' in that sentence means 'go into hiding' as you and I understand that in the real world if you and I were sitting in a room watching each other an one of us decide to hide from the other.

It does not mean 'take the Hide action'.

I mean you can still go into your box, but you can't take the Hide action once you're in there because I saw you go into the box. You can move into a box and close the lid, but you cant hide in the box, because I saw you clearly go into your hiding spot.

How are you not understanding this? There are (broadly) two possible interpretations of that passage above. Your gamist interpretation (which is absurd, and even you cant explain any of it) and my plain English interpretation (which reflects common sense and is empirically testable).

Read this, and take a stab in the dark about where you are going wrong interpreting that passage:

The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts.^[1] The other two are the “mischief rule” and the “golden rule.”


The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues.^[2] Additionally, it is the mechanism that underlies textualism and, to a certain extent, originalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule

 

[ClearlyTough69]

Perhaps we can agree that the rules for hiding, stealth and finding creatures are open to interpretation.

And because of that, perhaps we can agree to differ.

 

[Flamestrike]

Perhaps we can agree that the rules for hiding, stealth and finding creatures are open to interpretation.

That's precisely what I've been arguing. The RAW on hiding re 'hiding while being observed' can be (broadly) interpreted two ways: One [Hide in this context refers solely to the Hide action] leads to an absurd stripping of object permanence via some kind of 'hide action' taken after running behind total cover, that no-one can explain.

The other interpretation [Hide in this context means the plain English meaning of the word as in: Why the 'seeker' in Hide and Seek, closes his eyes and turns his back while counting because you cant hide from him if he's watching you] makes sense and is empirically testable.

Maybe its just my frustration as a Lawyer IRL, but in a Court of Law interpretation 2 (the non absurd one) wins.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

That's precisely what I've been arguing. The RAW on hiding re 'hiding while being observed' can be (broadly) interpreted two ways: One [Hide in this context refers solely to the Hide action] leads to an absurd stripping of object permanence via some kind of 'hide action' taken after running behind total cover, that no-one can explain.

The other interpretation [Hide in this context means the plain English meaning of the word as in: Why the 'seeker' in Hide and Seek, closes his eyes and turns his back while counting because you cant hide from him if he's watching you] makes sense and is empirically testable.

Maybe its just my frustration as a Lawyer IRL, but in a Court of Law interpretation 2 (the non absurd one) wins.

I'm a little confused by your arguments now. Are you saying that once someone breaks line of sight you are still watching them? That doesn't make sense to me. And if you are not saying that, then why can't the character or creature attempt their hide check once line of sight is broken?