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

[Plaguescarred]

I dont interpret 'hide' in that sentence to mean 'the Hide action'. I interpret that sentence to mean what it means in the real world using plain english language, not as some kind of parsed gamist rules jargon.

There's only one meaning of hide in 5E that i know and it's using the Hide action. Do you know another way of hiding without using the Hide action?

But do you agree that they're written intentionally vague (and intentionally in a way to support multiple interpretations)?

I said they are not as rigorous as 4E but they are still very functional. I think some simulationist find them too gamist though.

It isn't being used as a conjunction, though. It's being used as an adverb indicating that the halfling's ability qualifies or imposes a restriction on the normal situation that being in full view is a circumstance inappropriate for hiding.

Tough here is used used as a subortinating conjonction and still means ''despite the fact'' not as an abverb which are especially used at the end of a phrase.

The qualification, as I see it, is that as long as the halfling is behind an appropriately sized creature, she can hide in a circumstance where there is no restriction on vision that would make hiding possible. That doesn't mean she can do it while under the observation of the person from whom she's hiding, i.e. it's only a partial qualification.

If you say a halfling can try to hdie when there's no restriction on vision that would make hiding possible then she can try to hide when under observeations i don't understand you???

But it is in plain view. It's just that no observer is present. Characters without these abilities can't hide in plain view even when no observer is present because whoever they're hiding from will see them.

Ha i was waiting for you to claim that, so now we have Sage Advice using ''observers'' nearby that don't see, ''preying eyes starring'' that don't see and ''plain view'' that don't see! It's a long stretch to argue this if you ask me

Normally you can't try to hide in plain view got to be from creature that can see you clearly actually because you can already hide from a creature that can't see you clearly. It's not normal that you can't try to hide in plain view from people that can't see you if you understand the concept

Yes they do. The say you cant hide from a creature that can see you clearly enough.

If I saw you go into your hiding spot behind your tree, I clearly saw you go into hiding. Ergo, you cant [take the hide action] relative to me once you get behind the tree. I saw you go into hiding.

I mean; you can 'take the Hide action' behind your tree if you want. Your DC is infinity. You fail, and on my turn I walk over behind the tree I saw you duck behind and clobber you with my greataxe.

You can winge and sook about it all you want, but that interpretation is open to me from the RAW. Aint nothing you can do about it either.

No the rules don't say you can't hide from someone who know your lcoation. A DM can adjucation it this way yes but its not a written rule and aint nothing you can do about it either.

But in @Hriston's view a person behind a creature is in full view and hence can't vanish. The issue here in this thread is not a semantic one. It's about the mechanics of the game and the logic of the fiction; it can't be resolved by focusing ever-more minutely on the meaning of Crawford's words.

No the problem here is one using semantic to argue the rules and the Sage Advice clarifying it. NORMALLY you can't try to hide while in plain view...a halfling THOUGH can try. It can't be as clearl as that to establish that the these features are exception to the general rules.

[indentThe lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to remain unnoticed in their special circumstances even when watchers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to slip, unnoticed, behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to remain unnoticed simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of being unnoticed in situations unavailable to most other creatures, but neither subrace’s attempt to remain unnoticed is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”[/indent]

What you're doing here is changing terms so that you can better argue them which i believe is a fallacy. Try to hide in D&D 5E means something mechanically and its using the Hide action and making a Dexterity (Stealth) check and that you use until discovered,. You don't try tio hide once you're already hidden. You try to hide when you are not hidden yet.

 

[seebs]

I don't agree at all. [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has provided a gloss; so have I.

But you can only do it if you actually replace words with other words, which are not actually "synonyms" strictly speaking, just sort-of-similar.

"hide" is not "remain unnoticed" in the context of a discussion of your ability to take Hide actions, and a lightfoot halfling doesn't "slip, unnoticed, behind a creature" -- the halfling vanishes, and is no longer visible.

Basically, I don't accept this "gloss", and I so don't accept it that I do not even believe it to be a real position at this point. It's simply not convincing, and it requires so much torturous re-reading as to be implausible.

I'll believe this to be real when I see one of the people claiming it actually ask Crawford for an answer. In the absence of that, we're now several pages past my ability to assume good faith in the face of contrary evidence.

 

[Maxperson]

No. I've substituted synonyms for what they said which better illustrate my interpretation. I'm sure you could substitute different synonys that would better illustrate your reading of it.

Those aren't synonyms, except for watchers. They're phrases. Nor do they have the same meaning as what you changed out in the paragraph. They have slightly different meanings, as do most synonyms by the way. If you jhave to alter the meaning as you have done, you are probably not correct in your statement.

A different interpretation of a word doesn't require other words with slightly different meanings.

If you use this meaning of "full view" or "seen clearly", does that imply that I can hide by putting my hand and forearm behind my back? By putting boots over my feet? By standing behind a waist-high table? And what about the fact that you can only see one side of me (unless you have eyes on independent stalks and examine both sides of me simultaneously)?

The creature has to be in full view. Not its naked body. An arm behind itself also keeps the creature in full view. A waist high table would block a portion, though.

 

[pemerton]

Tough here is used used as a subortinating conjonction and still means ''despite the fact'' not as an abverb which are especially used at the end of a phrase.

<snip>

No the problem here is one using semantic to argue the rules and the Sage Advice clarifying it. NORMALLY you can't try to hide while in plain view...a halfling THOUGH can try.

Your second paragraph, which is a reasonable paraphrase of the Sage Advice sentence, demonstrates the use of "though" as an adverb. (Which is also how it is used by Sage Advice.)

"Though" as a conjunction occurs in such sentences as "He ate his lunch though he didn't enjoy it." Notice how it is conjoining two clauses, each of which could be a self-standing sentence: "He ate his lunch. He didn't enjoy it."

In the Sage Advice, though, there is only one main-clause verb and one relative clause verb in the relevant passage (I'm ignoring the final conjunction "and" which connects an otherwise independent main clause about elves): "A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, . . ."

The phrase that is at least one size larger is a relative clause (its verb being "is") and its grammatical function is adjectival - it characterises the main clause object a creature. If we put it to one side, we get as the main clause ""A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature."

The word "though" here is an adverb. If we take it out, we're left with the self-standing clause "A lightfoot halfling can try to vanish behind a creature." There is no other clause being conjoined by use of "though" (cf the example I gave above, which illustrates two main clauses conjoined by "though" serving as a conjunction).

But whether though is serving as an adverb or a conjunction, it's substantive contribution to meaning is the same: it signals some sort of contrast or opposition or tension between states of affairs. When used as a conjunctionm that will be a contrast between the two conjoined sentences. When used as an adverb, there will be some other sentence (typically the preceding one) with which the contrast is established. In the case of the Sage Advice, the contrast is between the ability of halflings and (as is stated in the previous sentence) the fact that "Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view."

If you wanted to rewrite the whole thing using "though" as a conjunction rather than an adverb it would be trivial to do so:

Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view, though a lightfoot halfling can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, . . ,"​

Notice that this change of syntactic funciton of "though" (from adverb to conjunction) makes no substantive difference to the meaning of what is said. The intended contrast is still conveyed. Crawford's choice to use "though" as an adverb rather than a conjunciton is all about style (eg managing sentence length) and not about substantive content.

 

[pemerton]

Those aren't synonyms, except for watchers. They're phrases. Nor do they have the same meaning as what you changed out in the paragraph. They have slightly different meanings, as do most synonyms by the way. If you jhave to alter the meaning as you have done, you are probably not correct in your statement.

A different interpretation of a word doesn't require other words with slightly different meanings.

I don't understand any of this. There is no contrast between being a synonym and being a phrase - eg "more hot" is a (clunky) phrase that is synonymous with "hotter"; "of tremendous size" is a phrase that is synonymous with "gargantuan", etc.

And most words (except perhaps some very precisely defined technical terms) have a range of meanings. That is the whole reason that glossing, and restating in other words, exists as a way to resolve interpretive ambiguity. I can't explain my reading of the passage just by literally restating it, can I!

 

[seebs]

I agree that it doesn't matter whether you're trying to treat "though" as a conjunction or an adverb. The point is that it's creating a contrast between what a lightfoot halfling can do ("try to hide behind a creature") and what is normally the case ("you can't hide when you're in full view"). Which is stating that the halfling's ability is an exception to the rule that you can't try to hide while in full view. In other words, they are definitely in full view, and yet, they can try to hide. Which is why I don't think the ambiguity is real.

I mean, I could offer a "gloss"of "Most words have a range of meanings" as "most orange juice is made with a device called a squeezer". But you'd probably grant that this is not really an ambiguity in what you said, but rather, substituting genuinely different things that change the meaning.

But every attempt I've seen to turn Crawford's fairly straight-forward language into support for the theory that maybe possibly he just picked a half dozen words all of which directly contradicted what he really meaned to communicate has struck me as, to put it mildly, changing the meaning too much to be a credible "interpretation".

 

[Plaguescarred]

Your second paragraph, which is a reasonable paraphrase of the Sage Advice sentence, demonstrates the use of "though" as an adverb.

If so then as an adverb it means "despite this", which still means the same so who cares what it is?

"Normally you can't try to hide while in plain view. A halfling despite this can try to vanish behind a creature"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/though

 

[pemerton]

If so then as an adverb it means "despite this", which still means the same so who cares what it is?

"Normally you can't try to hide while in plain view. A halfling despite this can try to vanish behind a creature"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/though

No one is puzzled about what "though" means - and you're the one who seemed to think it important that the use was conjunctive rather than adverbial!

As I've said several times, this dispute is not linguistic. It's about how the relevant states of affairs - which in this case are circumstances within the shared fiction which correlate to various mechanical circumstances also - should be identified and understood.
[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s reading, which he has made me sympathetic to, is that the halfling can vanish behind a creature - which others can't - in the same way that secret agents vanish into crowds. It leaves it open whether or not a halfling can do this while under direct observation.

 

[Plaguescarred]

@Hriston's reading, which he has made me sympathetic to, is that the halfling can vanish behind a creature - which others can't - in the same way that secret agents vanish into crowds. It leaves it open whether or not a halfling can do this while under direct observation.

Taken that everybody can try to hide behind a creature when not under direct observation it's evident that when Sage Advice says they can try to hide in situations unavailable to most other creatures it refers to it while under direct observation!

Naturally Stealthy doesn't just say a halfling can remain hidden behind a larger creature, but try to hide behind one.

 

[pemerton]

everybody can try to hide behind a creature when not under direct observation

Is this true? I thought the general principle was that you can't hide behind your friends.