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

[Maxperson]

I partly agree its quasi magical. Its the ability to remain hidden, even when in plain sight and directly observed (such as standing behind a ficus or in rain and being directly stared at).

And yes the emphasis on 'remain' was intentional. Im aware you interpret the rules to enable hiding while being looked at. I interpret them as allowing a hidden creature to remain hidden while being looked at. Its a subtle but important distinction in our differing interpretation of the same passage of text.

In the rules perhaps, but when you add in the sage advice, it's crystal clear that it's talking about hiding while being observed.

 

[Hriston]

Naturally Stealthy, Mask of the Wild and the Skulker feat are exceptions to the general rules that you can't hide when seen, by letting them hide while observed.

Those features don't say you can hide while observed and therefore don't contradict the general rule that you can't hide while observed.

Again the don't rules prevent you some trying to hide when it's location is known, in fact someone's location is always known before it does since it's hiding that makes your location unknown!

No, if there are no potential observers present before you hide, then your location is unknown to potential observers before you hide.

What the rules require is you to not be seen clearly. These feat or features specifically let you hide regardless.

Neither the feat nor the features say anything, specific or not, about hiding from a creature that can see you clearly or hiding while seen clearly.

If what you said was true, it would be additional meaningless conditions because if an elf or halfling needed to be concealed by a bigger creature or natural phenomenon in addition to not being seen in order try to hide, the feature would be useless since everyone can already do so when not seen!

No they can't, not from a potential observer. Let me give you an example to show what the benefit is for the wood elf under my interpretation:

Two characters, one human and the other a wood elf, are in a lightly wooded area of moderate foliage. The characters and everything else in the area are lightly obscured by this foliage. Nearby, a small hill provides a visual obstruction to anyone approaching from the East, but about 150 feet away from the characters a footpath coming from that direction clears the obstruction and comes into full view of the characters' location.

A patrol group is approaching along the foot path loudly singing a marching song and is heard by the two characters when it is about 300 feet away from them, and not yet in view. The player of the wood elf declares that the elf tries to hide from the patrol group. Because the elf is lightly obscured by moderate foliage and because he is not currently seen clearly due to the obstruction, conditions are appropriate for the elf to hide from the patrol group. The elf's player rolls a Dex (Stealth) check and as long as no one in the patrol group has a Wis (Perception) check that's higher, he will stay hidden when the group clears the obstruction and comes into full view.

Meanwhile, the human is also not seen by the patrol, but moderate foliage does not provide the human with an appropriate hiding place. She cannot hide from the patrol there. When the patrol clears the obstruction, she is noticed while the elf remains hidden.

It would make it harder for them to hide when using these features than it normally is by requiring additional conditions!

How do you think the wood elf's feature made it harder for him to hide in my example? Without the feature he wouldn't have been able to hide at all.

 

[Hriston]

It could have teleported or planshifted anywhere on the contrary! You literally have no proof that the halfling is still there but hidden, all you now know is that the halfling's position is unknown in addition to being unseen and unheard to you. Just as if it had disappeared....

I'm sorry, the question was would I allow the halfling to hide in the first place if it was observed moving behind the obscuring creature. My answer should have been no, because the halfling continues to be seen behind the other creature. That's how the observer knows where the halfling is, or do you imagine that no part of the halfling is visible behind the other creature?

And you still have to guess an hidden creature's space according to the rules - having a big doubt or certainty doesn't dispense you of that. You could choose it's last known location and be right but you must still do, just as for a human hiding in darkness.

I'm not arguing that knowing a creature's location gets you out of guessing where it is. I'm arguing that choosing the one location you're certain of isn't guessing at all.

 

[pemerton]

the MM restricts the ability to "natural surroundings" with adequate vegetation (which going back to Chainmail was a requirement of the hobbit's ability to become invisible), but is somewhat ambiguous as far as whether there is anything magical going on, reminiscent of Tolkien's emphasis on "the ordinary everyday sort" of magic.

<snip>

The most natural reading to me for what 's actually happening in the fiction would be that elves "blend" in and become "invisible" by hiding in the vegetation with a combination of superior (and perhaps magical) craft and skill, and that attacking not only makes them visible but prevents future attempts to become invisible for as long as combat continues. This all very strongly suggests to me that the intent for this ability was for it to be used primarily for setting up ambushes.

It's unclear to me whether the AD&D rules allow an elf that has chosen to remain visible while parlaying with someone to then become invisible while under direct observation. The treatment of the ability as the equivalent of the invisibility spell would suggest that the answer is yes

My own feeling on this - nothing more than an intuition, and not based on extensive textual study, nor a lot of play experiencde - is that the elf can't help but become invisible (ie it is the default state for them when moving through vegetation). But once the elf announces him-/herself then I would think s/he can't just vanish. Something else would have to happen - at least some sort of distraction.

Slightly related - I think that AD&D takes the opposite approach from 4e and 5e, in that the latter assume that, in combat, everyone is paying attention in every direction, whereas I think AD&D assumes that combat creates better-than-average opportunities for someone who is not him-/herself trading blows to slink into the shadows, escape into obscuring vegetation etc.

 

[pemerton]

Two characters, one human and the other a wood elf, are in a lightly wooded area of moderate foliage. The characters and everything else in the area are lightly obscured by this foliage. Nearby, a small hill provides a visual obstruction to anyone approaching from the East, but about 150 feet away from the characters a footpath coming from that direction clears the obstruction and comes into full view of the characters' location.

A patrol group is approaching along the foot path loudly singing a marching song and is heard by the two characters when it is about 300 feet away from them, and not yet in view. The player of the wood elf declares that the elf tries to hide from the patrol group. Because the elf is lightly obscured by moderate foliage and because he is not currently seen clearly due to the obstruction, conditions are appropriate for the elf to hide from the patrol group. The elf's player rolls a Dex (Stealth) check and as long as no one in the patrol group has a Wis (Perception) check that's higher, he will stay hidden when the group clears the obstruction and comes into full view.

Meanwhile, the human is also not seen by the patrol, but moderate foliage does not provide the human with an appropriate hiding place. She cannot hide from the patrol there. When the patrol clears the obstruction, she is noticed while the elf remains hidden.

How do you think this relates to the bit on Basic PDF p 64 that says "As long as they're not in the open, they can try to . . . sneak by"?

On one reading of this - as a component of the widely-dispersed rules for hiding - the human in your example is not in the open (because behind foliage) and hence is eligible to try and sneak.

(For the sake of clarity: in asking this question I don't have any agenda other than trying to make sense of how these things all fit together.)

 

[pemerton]

Scene: pemerton's house

Child: Dad, can I have a cookie?
Dad pemerton: You can have a cookie, son. You may have the cookie you've been staring at intently.

<child goes and gets a cookie from the cookie jar>

Dad pemerton: What are you doing?! I didn't say "yes"!

Huh? The child said "Can I have a cookie" and I replied "You can have a cookie". That is an unambiguous affirmative reply.

The Sage was asked "Can a wood elf hide while observed" and the answer is "S/he can hide while observers are nearby, and even if eyes are staring directly at the elf." As I said upthread, if by this the Sage intended s/he can hide while observed and even while stared at, he chose an extremely obtuse form of words.

the November 2015 Sage Advice <snippage> maintains the ambiguity found in the rules

I agree. It says neither "no" nor "yes", and recapitulates much the same sort of ambiguous or imprecise language as provokes the quetsion in the first place. Jeremy Crawford is clearly a clever person who is capable of being clear if he wants to be. From which I infer that he chose to maintain the ambiguities and lack of precision.

until you take an action to make a Stealth check to hide, you are not unseen and unheard, you are just lightly obscured, and thus still visible.

Your way of treating it would run contrary to the rules. If the elf steps out into a snow storm, he is not enjoying the benefit of being hidden until it actually take the Hide action and make a Stealth check, which is after he get out

As I said upthread, this is taking the action economy too literally for my taste.

I don't envisage the action economy as a model of a stop-motion world. I envisage it as a device for resolving actions that, in the world of the fiction, are unfolding as fluidly as things do in real life.

In real life a person can step out of his/her front door stealthily. There need be no moment where the person is (i) outside the door, yet (ii) not hidden. I don't see why an elf in D&D can't perform this same feat. Especially in 5e, which permits breaking up the movement on either side of the declaration and resolution of the DEX check.

Both a human and an elf or halfling go from hearable to unheard when sucessfully hiding so i don't really see your point about this?

My point is that vision and sound don't work the same way. I can choose (within limits) to be silent. I can't choose to be invisble.

I am assuming that the elf can't choose to be (literally) invisible either, even in falling snow. So saying that the elf "blinks off the radar" in the same way a human does who hides in darkness is not helpful. In the case of the human in the darkness, what makes him/her unable to be seen is the absence of light. What makes the elf unable to be seen (assuming s/he is not invisible)? I assume that it is some sort of "blending in" with the natural phenomena - camouflage in the broad sense that you used it upthread.

Can this be done while actually under observation from a person watching you? My feeling is that it can't.

 

[Flamestrike]

When you are the DM, that's your call. When you aren't the DM, it isn't your call. Whining about "player agency" won't win you any points at my table.

I wasnt whining. I was pointing out that the DM has no place telling me what my character thinks.

If I think 100 percent that a halfling is hidden in a box, then no amount of a 'hide action' is gonna change that by stripping object permanency from me, or placing in any doubt about where I saw the little beggar go.

And frankly I'd be a little peeved if a creature was able to do 'something' while in that box via the Hide action that magically granted him advantage to hit when he popped out to shoot me.

In the rules perhaps, but when you add in the sage advice, it's crystal clear that it's talking about hiding while being observed.

So you keep saying and so I keep refuting.

I mean, I understand how you interpret it that way. Its written so you can interpret it that way. Its also written so you can interpret it my way. I know this because thats how I interpret it.

So its not crystal clear at all.

In my view, this is intentional. Like how the rules to date on the topic have all done the same thing.

 

[Caliban]

I wasnt whining. I was pointing out that the DM has no place telling me what my character thinks.

If I think 100 percent that a halfling is hidden in a box, then no amount of a 'hide action' is gonna change that by stripping object permanency from me, or placing in any doubt about where I saw the little beggar go.

And frankly I'd be a little peeved if a creature was able to do 'something' while in that box via the Hide action that magically granted him advantage to hit when he popped out to shoot me.

Then be peeved. That's the part where you are whining. Your "100% certainty" doesn't mean anything. It's not about what you THINK your character knows. You still can't see them, thus they get advantage. That's the way the game works, suck it up buttercup.

 

[Flamestrike]

Then be peeved. That's the part where you are whining.

Nah bro, still not whining. Despite what you think, you're wrong. I'm not whining, I'm defending an alternative interpretation of the rules on hiding.

Your "100% certainty" doesn't mean anything. It's not about what you THINK your character knows.

You're telling me what my character thinks now? You wanna play it for me as well?

You still can't see them, thus they get advantage. That's the way the game works, suck it up buttercup.

Oh no, I agree a creature that attacks from hiding gains advantage on the attack. A human hiding behind a tree and peeking around it shoots me with advantage. Check.

My point is that in your example, they're not hidden.

Seeing as I know where they are and all. Cause I watched them going into hiding. And if they're not hidden, they cant avail themselves of the rules for attacking from hiding. Thus they don't get advantage on their attack. Even elves, because If I saw them go into light obscurement, they cant hide there, and while not hidden they remain perfectly visible.

Its the same if they break LOS and dont take the hide action. They dont magically get advantage on their next attack when they shoot around the corner.

Seeing as (with a simulationist interpretation of the rules) they cant hide when I watch them do it (hide = plain english interpretation, which includes the act of ducking down into a hiding spot/ enter the box) this silly scenario never happens at my table.

You know; where the only difference between a creature being hidden or not is them doing 'something' while totally out of view of me in that box that either strips object permanence from me, or somehow makes me confused as to what I just saw them do (go into the box).

Somehow.

 

[Maxperson]

So you keep saying and so I keep refuting.

You haven't refuted it, though. You keep saying it, but saying it is not proof. I mean, some people "interpret" 100 degree weather as not hot. Others still interpret the Earth to be flat based on what they can see. That doesn't make it so.