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

[darkrose50]

As a DM i use this rule of thumb; if the location/positioning you need to adopt to make a range attack would not be viable to try to hide because others can see you clearly enought, then you don't remain hidden when poping out this way. Out of combat, popping out this way could let you remain hidden from distracted creatures that are unaware of you though.

Added: "from cover (perhaps 75% or 100%)." to the end.

But then again a chaotic battlefield could be ripe with unaware targets. I would allow an attempt at "hiding" (a stealth roll to gain advantage) in such situations even if one was standing up, unobstructed, in the light of day, and shooting at someone otherwise not paying attention to you (moving towards someone else, fighting someone else, reloading, bandaging).

If someone is trying to kill you with a sword, and then his ally decides to shoot you, then I would find it to be quite reasonable for him to spend an action, attempt a stealth check, in order to time the attack in order to gain advantage (when you are most occupied with doing something).

 

[Satyrn]

If someone is trying to kill you with a sword, and then his ally decides to shoot you, then I would find it to be quite reasonable for him to spend an action, attempt a stealth check, in order to time the attack in order to gain advantage (when you are most occupied with doing something).

I'm sure most of us find that reasonable.

The scary thing for some DMs is that halfling rogue doing it as bonus action. I'd be fine with it, as I can simply mark down as "yeah that's a very hobbity thing, cool" although I might eventually find it irritating as a DM if I played with someone who used the same tactic repeatedly without variation. Irritated because bored.

But then I hope I'd take that as a sign that maybe my contribution to the combat could use improving.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Added: "from cover (perhaps 75% or 100%)." to the end. But then again a chaotic battlefield could be ripe with unaware targets. I would allow an attempt at "hiding" (a stealth roll to gain advantage) in such situations even if one was standing up, unobstructed, in the light of day, and shooting at someone otherwise not paying attention to you (moving towards someone else, fighting someone else, reloading, bandaging).

Personally if i judge that a creature can't hide with 3/4 cover because it's still seen clearly enought, then it would not be hidden when popping out this way. Also since the rules say creatures in combat are alert for signs of danger all around them i think it's much less likely to work in comabt. I would let it work out of combat against a distracted creature that is not otherwwise specifically watching like a sentinel or something though.

 

[Hriston]

Okay. And? It also says lightly obscured can involve such areas as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage. What am I missing? What argument were you trying to make? That the words "lightly obscured" don't mean what I think it means? Are you familiar with "obscured" at all? If something is "lightly obscured," you consider it to still be "seen clearly." I don't. The usage of those words have meaning to me. Where does that leave us?

I don't think obscured and seen clearly are intended to be in opposition. I mean, sure, seen absolutely clearly is completely unobscured, but I don't think that's the meaning that was intended when clearly was added, especially considering that the original text was thought to have captured the intended meaning well enough to have published it in the first place. How do we get from merely seen to seen with absolute clarity? No, mostly seen clearly can be somewhat obscured, but not enough to hide. Mostly obscured is not seen clearly enough to deny hiding, although you might be seen un-clearly. Heavily obscured areas include things like dense woods and moonlit nights, areas where a certain degree of visual clarity is possible, so it isn't as if "blocks vision entirely" or even "imposes the blinded condition" have the kind of absolute meaning in the fiction which you seem to favor.

I'm sure you have a citing to corroborate your interpretation of *why* the Sage added "clearly". I look forward to reading his insights on the reasoning for that clarification.

From the most recent update (10/24/16) of the Player's Handbook Errata PDF:

Using Ability Scores
Hiding (p. 177). The text clarifies that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding, and the first sentence of the second paragraph starts as follows: “You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”​

This just basically reiterates what the actual text changes were. What this particular erratum tells us is that Crawford felt the need to state more obviously that it's the DM's duty, not the player's, to decide when it's even possible to make a DEX (Stealth) check to hide. The addition of 'clearly' throws a shade on the notion that this decision might be taken out of the DM's hands because a creature has line-of-sight to the one trying to hide, a concept which doesn't really appear in the PHB (not sure about the DMG) anyways. For example, in the fiction you can be seen on a moonlit night, but not clearly enough to prevent you from hiding.

Again, I'm not sure how you reconcile something that is "lightly obscured," by definition, with something being "seen clearly." I just keep getting hung up on the meanings of "obscured" (even lightly) and being seen "clearly." You say binary. Yet, the rules themselves have three degrees. Not two. "Seen clearly" (as I see it, or un-obscured if you will), "lightly obscured" and "heavily obscured". Binary? Not by definition, no.

I said whether or not you are seen clearly is binary. Either you are or you aren't. It sounds to me like your "seen clearly" is binary as well. You just put the line between completely un-obscured and lightly obscured, whereas I put it between lightly obscured and heavily obscured. The way I reconcile lightly obscured with seen clearly is that "seen clearly" doesn't have to mean "seen with absolute clarity". It can mean "seen clearly enough for the purpose of denying an attempt to hide".

That's a fine interpretation for your table. I concede that. You can enjoy the heck out of playing it that way. Pardon me if I disagree with your interpretation and choose to play it the way I read it.

Thanks. I feel the same way about how you choose to interpret the rules at your table. I'm actually interested in understanding how that plays out differently at your table, because I'm having some difficulty reconciling everyone being able to hide (with the DM asking for a check) when only lightly obscured (if I'm correct in understanding that as your position) and certain rules which imply that heavily obscured provides some added utility to the hider. For example, the invisible condition's statement that the invisible creature is heavily obscured for the purpose of hiding would seem meaningless if everyone could hide when only lightly obscured. Why would it say "heavily obscured" instead of just "obscured"? What added value for the purpose of hiding is there to being heavily obscured?

 

[Hriston]

The requirement for the ATTEMPT is satisfied. Success or failure is up to the DM and race/class features. If the hider is a human with only the tiniest bit of obscurement, the DM is well within his rights not to ask for a roll and say the outcome is not in doubt and the attempt fails. This is right in line with the rulings over rules mantra of 5e. Clearly, elves with their added ability to hide under such conditions even while being observed would warrant a roll, unlike the human.

When I asked if the visual requirement for hiding was satisfied, I meant satisfied to the extent that the DM asks for a roll or determines a successful outcome to the fictional attempt. I.e., that the fictional attempt has a chance of success. When I say hiding in this context, I'm not talking about the fictional attempt. I'm talking about the player being able to declare an action the outcome of which is declared successful or determined with reference to the action resolution mechanic. If the DM determines that the human's attempt doesn't warrant a roll, then the DM is not letting the human try to hide.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think obscured and seen clearly are intended to be in opposition. I mean, sure, seen absolutely clearly is completely unobscured, but I don't think that's the meaning that was intended when clearly was added, especially considering that the original text was thought to have captured the intended meaning well enough to have published it in the first place. How do we get from merely seen to seen with absolute clarity? No, mostly seen clearly can be somewhat obscured, but not enough to hide. Mostly obscured is not seen clearly enough to deny hiding, although you might be seen un-clearly. Heavily obscured areas include things like dense woods and moonlit nights, areas where a certain degree of visual clarity is possible, so it isn't as if "blocks vision entirely" or even "imposes the blinded condition" have the kind of absolute meaning in the fiction which you seem to favor.

We have been told that 5e, as in all of it, was intended to be read with the common meanings of words as what they intended. The common meanings of "obscured" and "seen clearly" are in opposition, so unless they are wrong about their game, or they lied to us, you are not correct in that assumption.

 

[Maxperson]

When I asked if the visual requirement for hiding was satisfied, I meant satisfied to the extent that the DM asks for a roll or determines a successful outcome to the fictional attempt.

Those are two different things. RAW decides whether the visual requirements for the attempt are satisfied. The DM then decides success, failure, or in doubt. Only if in doubt is a roll asked for. Rolls are not dependent and satisfaction of the requirement.

I'm talking about the player being able to declare an action the outcome of which is declared successful or determined with reference to the action resolution mechanic.

This is a house rule. RAW includes auto failure as an outcome of the declared action by the player. If you are removing that option or moving it to another section of the rules, it's a house rule.

If the DM determines that the human's attempt doesn't warrant a roll, then the DM is not letting the human try to hide.

This is flat out wrong. The DM is in fact letting the human try. He's declaring AFTER the attempt that it is a failure.

 

[ScaleyBob]

The question ought to be . . . should one be able to use a resource (an action) to make a stealth check in order to gain a benefit (advantage on an attack) from being stealthy about the timing of a ranged attack from cover (perhaps 75% or 100%).

I would rule that the intention of using hiding (using stealth) behind a tree, using an action, and then later attacking is not hiding (using stealth) to remain hidden, but using stealth to pick the best moment you can muster to attack (setting up an attack so that your opponent is least ready, or picking the best moment to attack).

[1] Combat begins as an orc, hiding behind a tree, shoots at a human, and gains advantage on the attack.
[2] The human then hides behind a tree.
[3] The orc hides again (trying to find the perfect time to attack).
[4] The human attacks with advantage from hiding, but the orc has +5 AC (three quarters cover).
[5] The orc attacks with advantage from hiding, but the human has +5 AC (three quarters cover).

. . . what we would have here is a mechanical reason to emulate a firefight like we see in those moving picture shows. This could be interesting for a cowboyesq game.

Rogues would be bad-ass in the old west . . . like all the bank robbers of yore.

I'm currently running an Old West themed D&D game, and yes the rogue is incredibly bad-ass. There's usually a lot of terrain on the table for people to take cover or hide behind, and that makes the Rogue lethal. He hasn't even bothered with getting a pistol yet either.

I'm not too bothered by it yet. A couple of Fireballs thrown in his direction would do the trick if he gets too egregious.

 

[Hriston]

We have been told that 5e, as in all of it, was intended to be read with the common meanings of words as what they intended. The common meanings of "obscured" and "seen clearly" are in opposition, so unless they are wrong about their game, or they lied to us, you are not correct in that assumption.

I understand that 5e represents a move away from technical jargon and towards a heavier reliance on natural language, but your claim that 5e was written with no terms of game jargon whatsoever is laughable when compared with what we read in the actual published rules. To see that terms of jargon are bolded when introduced in the text, you only have to look as far as page 2 of the Player's Basic Rules, where campaign is defined as an ongoing story. That doesn't come close to the meaning campaign has in natural language, where it is defined as a series of military operations. So if we take your natural language meanings only approach we end up with a contradiction in the text right off the bat. I don't know what statement from what dev you feel promised you a ruleset where all the words used would have their natural language meanings, but I'd be very interested in seeing a citation to that effect.

 

[Maxperson]

I understand that 5e represents a move away from technical jargon and towards a heavier reliance on natural language, but your claim that 5e was written with no terms of game jargon whatsoever is laughable when compared with what we read in the actual published rules.

There's a better than average change that my "claim" is laughable due to the fact that it's a Strawman. I never claimed any such thing. Technical jargon can be written in natural language format.

To see that terms of jargon are bolded when introduced in the text, you only have to look as far as page 2 of the Player's Basic Rules, where campaign is defined as an ongoing story. That doesn't come close to the meaning campaign has in natural language, where it is defined as a series of military operations. So if we take your natural language meanings only approach we end up with a contradiction in the text right off the bat. I don't know what statement from what dev you feel promised you a ruleset where all the words used would have their natural language meanings, but I'd be very interested in seeing a citation to that effect.

You don't hear common usage much, do you? Tell me, what states were invaded militarily by Hillary and Trump during their political campaigns? How many people were shot to death or bombed during all of the ad campaigns that happen annually?