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

[pemerton]

An illusionist is one who uses illusions. A sorcerer or wizard is one who uses magic, both in game and out. A warlock is also one who uses magic and is beholden to an entity, both in game and out. A cleric is a religious man who prays, both in game and out. The rest are no different.

In natural language, an "illusionist" is a stage magician. Not a particular category of fictional wonder-worker.

And "warlock" is, in natural language, just a synonym for magician, wizard, sorcerer, etc. This is why, in classic D&D, "warlock", "wizard" and "sorcerer" were all just level titles for magic-users.

The fact that, in 5e, they have distinct technical meanings is sufficient to show that they are jargon. They are being used in a specialisd sense that departs from (but obviously is not utterly inconsistent with or completely unrelated to) their ordinary meaning.

A fighter IS one who fights. That other classes also fight is beside the point.

Huh?

If a player says of his/her PC "My guy is a fighter" and in fact the PC is a wizard but one who never gives up in a struggle, then - in natural language terms - the player has said something true, but in D&D terms the player has said something either false, or at best seriously misleading.

The term "fighter" is used as piece of jargon to distinguish a particular category of PC, not to describe a PC as one who fights.

It baffles me that you're arguing otherwise.

Class names also correspond to real world words that are similar in natural language.

This is true of most jargon. "Mail" used to mean "email" describes something similar to (but not) a letter sent through the post.

"Fraud" and "knowledge" as pieces of legal jargon describes something similar to fraud and knowledge in the natural language ssenses, but not identical (eg at law someone can be said to know something "constructively", whereas in natural language what the law calls "constructive knowledge" is a species of ignorance).

 

[Maxperson]

In natural language, an "illusionist" is a stage magician. Not a particular category of fictional wonder-worker.

And "warlock" is, in natural language, just a synonym for magician, wizard, sorcerer, etc. This is why, in classic D&D, "warlock", "wizard" and "sorcerer" were all just level titles for magic-users.

The fact that, in 5e, they have distinct technical meanings is sufficient to show that they are jargon. They are being used in a specialisd sense that departs from (but obviously is not utterly inconsistent with or completely unrelated to) their ordinary meaning.

Huh?

If a player says of his/her PC "My guy is a fighter" and in fact the PC is a wizard but one who never gives up in a struggle, then - in natural language terms - the player has said something true, but in D&D terms the player has said something either false, or at best seriously misleading.

The term "fighter" is used as piece of jargon to distinguish a particular category of PC, not to describe a PC as one who fights.

It baffles me that you're arguing otherwise.

This is true of most jargon. "Mail" used to mean "email" describes something similar to (but not) a letter sent through the post.

"Fraud" and "knowledge" as pieces of legal jargon describes something similar to fraud and knowledge in the natural language ssenses, but not identical (eg at law someone can be said to know something "constructively", whereas in natural language what the law calls "constructive knowledge" is a species of ignorance).

You seem stuck on what natural language means. It seems like you think that the definition will be identical in both the game and the real world, rather than just really similar. An illusionist in the real world is one who creates illusions to fool an audience. An illusionist in the game is one who creates illusions to fool the enemy. Both create illusions to fool. Both are the same in the natural use of language. They don't both have to use slight of hand, or both magic. There can be differences.

Jargon can be(and in 5e is) natural language as well. A thing isn't one or the other.

 

[pemerton]

Jargon can be(and in 5e is) natural language as well.

I guess, in the same sort of way that dry things can be wet, or huge things tiny.

Or (to hark back to [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s original example), in the same sort of way that something might be seen without doubt or ambiguity (because the player of the viewing character succeeded on a WIS/perception check) and yet fail to be seen clearly.

EDIT: For fun, I Googled "mike mearls wizards.com "natural language"". I found this interview from mid-2012:

Interviewer: One poignant difference between the early and later editions of the game is that the early editions used a more "open" rules system, not necessarily defining everything through rules, but instead frequently defining concepts using natural language and the imaginary world instead of keywords and mathematics. Do you think this difference is important? How challenging is it to provide a game that people can use both ways, and what are the pros and cons of each approach?

Mearls: I think the difference speaks to one of the key things that people like about D&D Next. We’re definitely moving back to a more open game, where DM adjudication is more important and a DM’s individual skill plays a bigger role in how the game works. That’s a key, unique trait of RPGs that other types of games can’t duplicate. With gaming becoming more and more crowded, it’s key for us to emphasize our unique traits and strengths.

The drawback is that some DMs might feel adrift. Sometimes, it’s nice to have specific rules to fall back on.​

Clearly, class names, and the terminology of "lightly obscured" is, in this context, "keywords" and "specific rules to fall bakc on" - not "natural language" or adjudication simply by reference to the "imaginary world" (ie the shared fiction).

 

[Maxperson]

I guess, in the same sort of way that dry things can be wet, or huge things tiny.

Or (to hark back to [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s original example), in the same sort of way that something might be seen without doubt or ambiguity (because the player of the viewing character succeeded on a WIS/perception check) and yet fail to be seen clearly.

EDIT: For fun, I Googled "mike mearls wizards.com "natural language"". I found this interview from mid-2012:

Interviewer: One poignant difference between the early and later editions of the game is that the early editions used a more "open" rules system, not necessarily defining everything through rules, but instead frequently defining concepts using natural language and the imaginary world instead of keywords and mathematics. Do you think this difference is important? How challenging is it to provide a game that people can use both ways, and what are the pros and cons of each approach?

Mearls: I think the difference speaks to one of the key things that people like about D&D Next. We’re definitely moving back to a more open game, where DM adjudication is more important and a DM’s individual skill plays a bigger role in how the game works. That’s a key, unique trait of RPGs that other types of games can’t duplicate. With gaming becoming more and more crowded, it’s key for us to emphasize our unique traits and strengths.

The drawback is that some DMs might feel adrift. Sometimes, it’s nice to have specific rules to fall back on.​

Clearly, class names, and the terminology of "lightly obscured" is, in this context, "keywords" and "specific rules to fall bakc on" - not "natural language" or adjudication simply by reference to the "imaginary world" (ie the shared fiction).

Mearls is saying there that they've gone back to the open gaming of 1e and 2e, and a drawback of that is that some people might feel adrift since there aren't those specific rules to fall back on. He's saying to use natural language over specific rules. Thanks for supporting my position with that find.

 

[pemerton]

Mearls is saying there that they've gone back to the open gaming of 1e and 2e

He says "we're definitely moving back to a more open game". This is not synonymous with what you attiribute to him - it uses a verb of process ("moving"), not of completion ("gone back to"); and it uses an adjective of comparison ("more open game"), not of absolutes ("the open gaming"). For a poster who likes to hang many arguments on rather pedantic semantic claims, I find that you are sometimes extremely casual, even to the point of carelessness, in your glossing of others' words.

Clearly the game is not completey open, because it has all sorts of rules for being a fighter rather than a wizard rather than a . . .; for things being lightly obscured rather than not obscured at all rather than heavily obscured rather than . . . ; etc, etc.

I don't know what variety of RPGs you're familiar with, but I'm pretty confident Mearls - one of the most successful RPG designers of all time - is familiar with many of them. So he will know that there are RPGs which really do rely on natural language rather than jargon for all aspects of PC building (eg HeroQuest revised; Maelstrom Storytelling, a version of which you can download for free from DriveThru under the name "Story Bones"). And he will be equally well aware that 5e is not such an RPG!

EDIT: To create a PC in HeroQuest revised, you write out a 100 word description of your character (which is ordinary language by definition), then you underline nouns and adjectives that are candidates to be abilities, ie, something with or whereby a character can solve problems. The only time jargon comes into if everyone agrees as part of the campaign set-up to include certain genre-appropriate keywords, which are little ability-packages (eg the example given is of pre-defining the notion "Londoner", in which case if your 100 word description inlcudes being a Londoner, you get the benefit of the keyword).

 

[Plaguescarred]

TThis is mainly what we're disagreeing about in this thread. My position is that MotW, NS, HiPS, and Skulker do not grant the ability to "enter hiding" in a situation where someone sees you clearly and so knows where you are.

You're not just disagreeing with us but with Jeremy Crawford's twitter and WoTC's Sage Advice about the fact that they can try to hide when observers are nearby.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Clearly, class names, and the terminology of "lightly obscured" is, in this context, "keywords" and "specific rules to fall bakc on" - not "natural language" or adjudication simply by reference to the "imaginary world" (ie the shared fiction).

I totally agree they are defined game terms jargon.

What is a natural language and not a game term jargon with concrete definition in the rules is "seen CLEARLY". So what does make one being seen clearly or not clearly is not described. Does lightly obscured makes you not seen clearly? If so i'd mean anyone can try to hide as such and it would greatly devalue feat or feature that specifically allow it such as Skulker and Mask of the Wild. To me it's clear it's not meant to be prior and after the errata.

FYI the question was asked to them in january on twitter but hasn't been answered yet unfortunatly;

@oilpainting71 Can anyone hide in a "lightly obscured area", or only those with the Skulker feat, and Mask of the Wild?1of2
‏@oilpainting71 If yes, how does Skulker feat & Mask of the Wild differ with the ability to hide in "light obscurement"? 2of2

https://twitter.com/oilpainting71/status/689552585792028673?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[pemerton]

What is a natural language and not a game term jargon with concrete definition in the rules is "seen CLEARLY". So what does make one being seen clearly or not clearly is not described. Does lightly obscured makes you not seen clearly?

Well, [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s answer is "no" - lightly obscured may or may not make you not seen clearly, depending on whether or not a Perception check (if required) succeeds. But if a person is seen despite light obscurement - because any required Perception check succeeded despite disadvantage - then they are, ipso facto, seen clearly.

Hence Hriston's view that, in a case where a person is seen clearly despite light perception, s/he cannot suddenly disappear even if a wood elf or a skulker. In other words, Hriston does not regard those abilities as establishing an exception to the "seen clearly" requirement. The reasoning seems fairly sound to me.

You're not just disagreeing with us but with Jeremy Crawford's twitter and WoTC's Sage Advice about the fact that they can try to hide when observers are nearby.

I can't comment on the tweets, because if I saw them earlier in this thread I've forgotten them.

But as far as the Sage Advice is concerned - the presence of observers nearby does not entail that one is being observed. (In this context, "observers" becomes equivalent to "potential observers".) Crawford could, so easily, have written "the elf can hide in those special circumstances even when under observation" but chose not to. That choice is surely deliberate: a deliberate choice to maintain the ambiguity in the rules, and hence to leave [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s reading an open one.

 

[Plaguescarred]

But if a person is seen despite light obscurement - because any required Perception check succeeded despite disadvantage - then they are, ipso facto, seen clearly.

A person that is lightly obscured is still seen. It'd need to be more heavily obscured to not be seen.

Hence Hriston's view that, in a case where a person is seen clearly despite light perception, s/he cannot suddenly disappear even if a wood elf or a skulker. In other words, Hriston does not regard those abilities as establishing an exception to the "seen clearly" requirement. The reasoning seems fairly sound to me.

Those features do say they can try to hide when lightly obscured or obscured only by a creature. Requiring to not be seen clearly in addition to that just make it more difficult for them to hide by requiring extra conditions to be met to use those features since everyone can already try to hide when not seen clearly, rather than being easier for them to by having the ability to hide in situations unavailable to most other creatures.

But as far as the Sage Advice is concerned - the presence of observers nearby does not entail that one is being observed.

But anyone not being observed can try to hide since they're not seen! These features are instead specifically allow one to try to hide when he otherwise couldn't, hence the sentence: "Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures"

"Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature" is essentially saying it can try to hide when still seen it would not really make a halfling capable of hiding in situations unavailable to most other creatures if he needed to not be seen clearly isn't he?

 

[Maxperson]

He says "we're definitely moving back to a more open game". This is not synonymous with what you attiribute to him - it uses a verb of process ("moving"), not of completion ("gone back to"); and it uses an adjective of comparison ("more open game"), not of absolutes ("the open gaming"). For a poster who likes to hang many arguments on rather pedantic semantic claims, I find that you are sometimes extremely casual, even to the point of carelessness, in your glossing of others' words.

If it wasn't what I'm attributing, no DMs would be lose due to it. The fact that he's saying that what they did with 5e is going to cause some DMs to be lost is proof of my claim.

Clearly the game is not completey open, because it has all sorts of rules for being a fighter rather than a wizard rather than a . . .; for things being lightly obscured rather than not obscured at all rather than heavily obscured rather than . . . ; etc, etc.

Yes there are rules in 5e, just like the early editions. No those rules do not take precedence over natural language, just like early editions, which can cause some DMs to become lost, as evidenced by this thread. Some DMs are going to try and force the rules to take precedence over natural language and become lost, arguing that "seen clearly" and "obscured" can happen at the same time.

I don't know what variety of RPGs you're familiar with, but I'm pretty confident Mearls - one of the most successful RPG designers of all time - is familiar with many of them. So he will know that there are RPGs which really do rely on natural language rather than jargon for all aspects of PC building (eg HeroQuest revised; Maelstrom Storytelling, a version of which you can download for free from DriveThru under the name "Story Bones"). And he will be equally well aware that 5e is not such an RPG!

Nobody is arguing that it is. There are rules. Those rules are secondary to natural language. If there is a perceived conflict, it's the DM and not the rules that decides the outcome.