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

[ClearlyTough69]

No you dont 'hide after going out of view'. There is no break between you going into cover and hiding.

If that's true, how come I can go behind cover and not hide?

[Sorry if I'm not the first to make this observation!]

 

[Flamestrike]

You can't sense someone in a box unless they're making noise, whether you saw them go in there or not (unless the lid's still open, in which case you can still see them).

Why do I need to sense them once they're in there? I know they're in there because I sensed them getting in.

My senses have informed my knowledge. And its my knowledge that matters. Remember, whether you're hidden relative to me depends on my state of mind.

If I know where you are (and am objectively correct in that knowledge) then you are not hidden from me.

Heck; I could rely on someone elses senses (they percieve you, and then they tell me where you are) to render you no longer hidden.

And from the point of view of the observer outside the box, how do I KNOW you're still in there, if you aren't making any noise? How do I know there isn't a trapdoor, or you didn't use magic to teleport away, or turn into a spider and crawl out through the back? I might assume those things didn't happen, but until I look in the box (using my action to search) I don't really know for sure.

If my knowledge of where you are doesnt match the objective reality (i.e. if you used a secret door to escape once inside the box) then you can be (and likely are) hidden from me.

Suppose the seeker saw the hider get into the box, but he thinks the box is a magical teleportation device? The seeker now believes he has no idea where the hider is. Can the hider take the hide action now, even if it's a normal box?

Dont take this the wrong way, but go back and read the thread. Its been covered several times, and im sick of repeating myself mate.

In short, if you have some kind of magical or secret way of moving from your box to another location (i.e you have a way of going into hiding while not being observed) then you can hide from me.

If you dont have such a method, you cant.

Again, how does the observer KNOW they are there?

The observer watched them crawl in the box and close the lid. As long as that remains the objective reality (the person hiding from you is in the box) the person in the box cannot be hidden from you.

He can be as quiet as he wants, but he never becomes hidden. His DC to become hidden relative to you is infinity.

Should he slink off elsewhere via a concealed secret door while inside the box (go into hiding while not under observation), then he can hide normally.

Good. So then why do you keep trying to explain your arguments to me when you acknowledge that they cannot be persuasive?

Just because you might not find them persuasive because of your interpretation, doesnt mean others wont.

Other than the empiricism part--which does not and cannot apply--I'm doing the same, and I'm reaching a very different conclusion than you are.

OK, then come over to my house and we can empirically test the theory out. To see if you can hide from me under observation, lets use the following experiment:

I'll put 5 boxes in a room and you can hide in one of them. I'll then try to find you by repeatedly poking a broom stick through a box of my choosing.

The first 100 times I'll watch you crawl into the box you choose, and give you a minute (under observation) to be as quiet as you want inside that box. Lets see how often you get hit with the stick.

It'll be every single time by the way.

We can then repeat the experiment, only this time without me watching you get one of the five boxes. I'll be outside the room, blindfolded.

In this case, barring me [using the Search action to listen for you inside one of those boxes, and beating your stealth check result to stay quiet] it'll average out to you getting poked only 20 percent of the time.

If that's true, how come I can go behind cover and not hide?

[Sorry if I'm not the first to make this observation!]

You cant become hidden in cover. The decision is taken away from you thanks to me observing you going into cover. If I wasnt watching you go into cover, then you could hide. If I was watching you, then relative to me, you cant become hidden.

I mean; you can still try (be quiet, still your breathing, stand really still) to hide, but you automatically fail to become hidden from me due to me observation of you ducking behind the pillar/ getting in the box.

Heck; you can try to jump to the moon as well if you want but you also fail (DC = infinity).

 

[seebs]

If that's true, how come I can go behind cover and not hide?

[Sorry if I'm not the first to make this observation!]

That is a really good point. The rules clearly distinguish between "take the hide action" and "move into a location where you can't be seen".

 

[Flamestrike]

What if I were actually hiding behind the tree and I cast an illusion of me crawling into that cardboard box you are intently looking at? Do you still "know (objectively)" I'm in the box?

Nope. The mislead spell relies on this fact to work.

I need to know where you are (usually on account of watching you go there), and be objectively correct in that knowledge (as determined by the DM).

 

[Xetheral]

Just because you might not find them persuasive because of your interpretation, doesnt mean others wont.

If your replies to my points are not directed to me then you aren't actually addressing any of my points and we aren't really having a conversation.

OK, then come over to my house and we can empirically test the theory out. To see if you can hide from me under observation, lets use the following experiment:

We can't empiraclly test whether I can hide from you when we disagree about what it means to be hidden! If we ran the experiment you describe, you'd take your ability to poke me with a stick as evidence that I wasn't hidden, and I'd take your inability to actively sense me while I was in the box as evidence that I was hidden.

 

[Psikerlord#]

So, i know that rogues are the best at hiding, moving in slowly, hitting with a nasty Sneak Attack, and then, hiding as a bonus action to avoid getting hit themselves.

It's their thing. I get it.

However, it doesn't seem that any of the monsters presented in the MM or elsewhere really have a good enough Perception skill to find my rogue player.

I am DMing "Out of the Abyss", and at this point, they are levels 11 going on 12, so i expect them to be top notch characters, but this has been going on for a while now....

Most monsters just dont have the Perception to find the rogue when he hides. Worse, some monsters dont even have the Perception skill and must use thier weak Wisdom scores (at best a +3 or +4) to even try.

I've tried things like giving my rogue disadvantage while hiding in watery puddled places...

I've also had the monster go look around for the rogue at the spot where he last was seen, forcing my rogue to re-roll on his hide check...

..but rogues are just too damn good at it! Especially, when sneaking around in the Underdark.

I just dont know what to do at this point.

I want to hit my damn rogue so bad, but he's always hiding! And its like every round because he can do this as a bonus action with Cunning Action (granted at 2nd level!)

Any suggestions?
Anyone else have this problem?

Yeah the stealth rules are rather a mess in 5e. In my experience, best to be strict on when you allow re-hiding after a combat starts, and the enemy knows the thief is there.

 

[Hriston]

If I get into a box that, because of its construction, blocks any ability to sense me from outside the box, but am observed while getting into the box such that my location within the box is known with certainty by the observer, by attacking do I give away my location?

You can't give away your location if it hasn't been kept secret.

 

[KahlessNestor]

If I get into a box that, because of its construction, blocks any ability to sense me from outside the box, but am observed while getting into the box such that my location within the box is known with certainty by the observer, by attacking do I give away my location?

You can't give away your location if it hasn't been kept secret.

Considering that the whole purpose of hiding is that someone doesn't know your location, I think this is exactly right, and why you can't be hidden when observed climbing into the box. You may be unseen (which has its own benefits), but you aren't hidden.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Plaguescarred]

If I get into a box that, because of its construction, blocks any ability to sense me from outside the box, but am observed while getting into the box such that my location within the box is known with certainty by the observer, by attacking do I give away my location?

You can't give away your location if it hasn't been kept secret.

Regardless of how certain you are that a hidden creature is in a specific space, until you actually perceive it (beat his Stealth check, or it attacking or making nosie etc) it won't be reavealed to you by your sense, it will only be deductions of your own and not actual perception of him.

 

[kalil]

It seems that purposefully ambigious rules on stealth are serving their purpose: Every DM feels justified in running stealth just like tjey always did!