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

[kalil]

Hmm, I just had an idea: How about casting suggestion on the rogue and suggesting him to fight without hiding like a coward?

Doesnt work on a rogue due to this wording in suggestion: "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. "

 

[ThePolarBear]

Mate, I can interpret what I want how I want. RAW doesnt exist as a thing in and of itself. The only thing that exists is RAI.

Which, contrary to what you think, means Rules As Intended. You are saying that that what the developer think it's the right way - not yours, because yours does not matter.

The acronym you are looking for is "RAF", Rules As Fun. It's what works for your group, no matter what everyone else has to say, go ahead an do it.

RAI as Rules as Interpreted does not exist in 5e.

And contrary to what you think to interpret something you need to have a base to work on and logical reasons that lead to the conclusions of your interpretation. Else you are MISinterpreting something. Therefore, you can't interpret anything you want however you want.
You can always say that you are interpreting something: this does not make your interpretation valid - or an interpretation to begin with.

Not that Im talking about 1E and 2E in any great detail, because frankly I dont care, and am struggling to see the relevance of those rules to the rules in a different game.

Maybe as context?

I'm on the same boat. For me the answer is: "in this case, it doesn't have relevance".

 

[Maxperson]

I'm on the same boat. For me the answer is: "in this case, it doesn't have relevance".

Yeah, but two of [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]'s allies brought it up to show how their side was correct due to the 1e and 2e abilities, but they were very wrong with those as well. The 1e and 2e abilities support 5e allowing elves hide while observed.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Yeah, but two of [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]'s allies brought it up to show how their side was correct due to the 1e and 2e abilities, but they were very wrong with those as well. The 1e and 2e abilities support 5e allowing elves hide while observed.

I get why you answered and how you answered. It was a nice rebuttal but for the sake of this discussion it still does not hold relevance, IMHO. It should not have been brought up in the first place (again, IMHO).

 

[Hriston]

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.

I disagree with that reading. They are both in the open due to only being lightly obscured by moderate foliage. If the human was heavily obscured by dense foliage, for example, she wouldn't be in the open and could sneak. The wood elf can try to sneak by the patrol as long as he hasn't been seen clearly or noticed in some other way, because Mask of the Wild allows him to do so in moderate foliage, and as long as he is hidden he is not in the open.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I disagree with that reading. They are both in the open due to only being lightly obscured by moderate foliage. If the human was heavily obscured by dense foliage, for example, she wouldn't be in the open and could sneak. The wood elf can try to sneak by the patrol as long as he hasn't been seen clearly or noticed in some other way, because Mask of the Wild allows him to do so in moderate foliage, and as long as he is hidden he is not in the open.

But anyone can try to hide as long as he hasn't been seen clearly not just the elf!


If you prefer to say that an elf can try to hide in lightly obscured foliage because he not clearly seen anymore that's fine. But an elf that doesn't hide in such foliage doesn't otherwise gain any more benefit than anyone else lightly obscured though.

 

[Hriston]

But anyone can try to hide as long as he hasn't been seen clearly not just the elf!

Moderate foliage will not keep the human hidden from the patrol group. When they have an unobstructed path to the human, they will see her. She cannot hide from them there.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Moderate foliage will not keep the human hidden from the patrol group. When they have an unobstructed path to the human, they will see her. She cannot hide from them there.

If both the human and the elf cannot be seen clearly then should both be allowed to hide. If none of them try to hide they should as equally be seen. The only difference between them is that the elf has the ability to try to hide while in such foliage.

 

[Hriston]

First, combat is still going. This disengage and end combat idea is moving the goalposts and not even correct.

Acknowledging for clarification that we're probably talking about different things is not moving the goalposts. No goalposts have been established in this thread for combat utility. If they have please enlighten me.

I'm not sure why you say combat is still going. The elves cannot attack while hidden, or be attacked unless someone has the ability to see invisible objects, in which case the use of their ability has been foiled. Otherwise, combat resumes only when the elves decide to renew the attack.

The elf can be 6 inches from the enemy and if in natural surroundings, can disappear while being attacked. That means combat is still going on.

Either the elf is attacked and then hides, ending combat, or the elf hides and then cannot be attacked. Either way the ability is being used to disengage. Whether you see that as happening "in combat" or seems to be a matter of opinion.

Second, even if the elf disengages and moves 10 feet away, the attacker can throw, shoot, cast spells at, etc. the elf by guessing a location, so even then combat is still going on.

No, the hidden elves can't be attacked. Here's the passage from p 29 of Chainmail:

When invisible Elves (and Fairies) cannot attack -- or be attacked unless located by an enemy with the special ability to detect hidden or invisible troops -- but they can become visible and attack during the same turn.​

There is no guessing location.

Third, the whole combat vs. non-combat thing is entirely irrelevant to the point. The point is that the elf is vanishing from view while being observed in 1e and 2e, which is entirely consistent with the 5e Sage Advice.

It isn't clear to me that the MM elf is vanishing under observation. To me, the prohibition against blending in while attacking would suggest otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, but two of [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]'s allies brought it up to show how their side was correct due to the 1e and 2e abilities, but they were very wrong with those as well. The 1e and 2e abilities support 5e allowing elves hide while observed.

First, I'm not an "ally" of [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]. I'm posting some of my thoughts about how hiding works, and trying to think through what, in the fiction, takes place when an elf vanishes behind a fall of snow.

Second, I brought up the AD&D ability in trying to develop my understanding of [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s perspective, and I did so because I know (from other posts on other threads) that Hriston is familiar with AD&D and has interesting views about it.

This isn't a competition or a war (in which one confronts enemies in the comapny of allies) - at least, not for me. I'm just talking about how I understand hiding to work. As I've also said, I don't place a lot of stock in the wording of the rules, which I think is not very clear (eg both you and [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] take "in the open" on p 64 of the Basic PDF to include someone who is lightly obscured, whereas my default reading would have been that such a person, because obscured - even if only lightly so - is not "in the open"). I place stock in the fiction.