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

[Hriston]

Yeah, this strikes me as nonsensical and very much not a "natural language" meaning.

Nevertheless, the natural language meaning of the idiom in view is "within range of vision". I have added the word unobstructed as an acceptable (to me) gloss of full in this context. Another acceptable gloss of "in full view" would be "fully visible", which I would contrast with "fully seen".

 

[Xetheral]

If vision to a creature's location is blocked by obstruction, or if the location is heavily obscured, then that isn't in full view. Whether a creature is present, however, is a matter of encounter distance.

Not necessarily. It depends primarily on the audible distance involved, dictated most likely by the human's noise level. If audible distance extends beyond the room, then the room is not in full view because the walls of the room provide an obstruction. On the other hand, if the human is trying to remain quiet and is more than 20 to 60 feet away from the hall, or if there is an intervening door, then the room is in full view.

If there's a chance he will be heard from outside the room, that expands the encounter area beyond the room, which is not then in full view.

One doesn't need to be in an encounter to hide, and having advance knowledge of future encounter parameters isn't guaranteed. At its most basic, whether or not the hiding character successfully evades notice--and for how long--directly contributes to encounter distance. That alone renders circular your requirement that encounter distance be determined prior to deciding if someone is in full view and thus whether or not they can hide. Additionally, the later actions of other PCs or NPCs may influence encounter distance, again preventing the DM from knowing the encounter parameters ahead of time.

Out of curiosity, before allowing someone to hide outside of an encounter, do you really sit down and try to figure out what the parameters of future encounters will be in order to determine whether or not the character is in full view? Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems preposterous. Isn't it a thousand times easier to just let anyone hide anywhere so long as they aren't currently observed?

In both cases hiding may be automatically lost depending on the movement of future opponents, so your approach doesn't save any work in the long run, it just adds a lot of it up front. I'm hard-pressed to see any advantage to your approach other than justifying what is turning into an ever-more-tortuous interpretation of Crawford's Sage Advice.

 

[Caliban]

Nevertheless, the natural language meaning of the idiom in view is "within range of vision".

Nope. It means "being seen by someone." You need an observer. An actual observer, not a hypothetical one.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in your "counterarguments". They are pretty much nonsense that relies on strained definitions that don't fit the context of the language or situation, but fortunately it doesn't really matter. You're not my DM, and your not one of my players.

I am curious as to whether or not you've ever had a rogue successfully hide when you are the DM. It sounds pretty much impossible, given the way you define things. Is it even worth it trying to play a rogue in your games? It sure doesn't sound like fun.

 

[pemerton]

And all of this is disregarding the fact that the phrase is "Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view". That "from someone" somehow keeps disappearing, even if it's in full view of anyone that reads that phrase.

All hiding is hiding from someone. The "from someone" is redundant.

 

[Caliban]

All hiding is hiding from someone. The "from someone" is redundant.

Yeah, no.

 

[pemerton]

Nope. It means "being seen by someone." You need an observer. An actual observer, not a hypothetical one.

Here's what I would regard as a perfectly acceptable usage - "He went outside in only his shorts, his naked chest in full view. Fortunately for propriety, there was no one to see him."

Here's another version, which adds a "from" phrase - "He went outside in only his shorts, his naked chest in full view of any observers. Fortunately for propriety, there were none."

I think this is probably the sort of usage that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] had in mind.

 

[Caliban]

Here's what I would regard as a perfectly acceptable usage

Really don't care. You changed the context, so it doesn't matter.

 

[pemerton]

which is in contrast to how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has said he imagines wood elves as having an always-on camouflage in the proper settings, allowing them to hide because unseen

I'd prefer to say "unnoticed" - or, perhaps, "potentially unnoticed" - for the following reason.

If the elves were literally unseen that would, in the context of 5e, seem to suggest that they are invisible, and hence - even if detected - entitled to both an offensive and a defensive boost.

So I prefer to think of it this way - if A turns the corner and elf B is just hanging out in the rain/snow, A won't notice B unless (i) B is making significant noise, or moving rapidly/erratically, or otherwise doing something that automatically vitiates an attempt to hide, or (ii) B, despite being still and quiet, nevertheless is noticed by A (mechanically, the WIS check made for A beats the DEX check made for B).

Once A notices B, though, I would say that A is not only aware of B but can see B. Ie B ceases to be unseen. Which is to say, I envisage Mask of the Wild as closer to camouflage than invisibility.

What I've described doesn't quite capture the flavour of the elves in the Shire whom (if I'm remembering rightly) can be heard singing but not otherwise seen or located. But it's a trade-off to stop Mask of the Wild being too strong.

Let's say a human is alone in an empty room. He wants to take the hide action so that any future passers-by in the hallways outside the empty room will not hear him. Are you saying you would not let the human hide because he's "in full view" within the empty room?

I can't answer for [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], but I'd be surprised if his answer is very different from the following:

The person in the room wants to be unnoticed by those passing by it, and so stands still and quietly. Mechanically, this is resolved as a DEX check for that character. Anyone passing by the room is entitled to a WIS check (active or passive as appropriate) to see if they notice the person who is trying to be as still and quite as possible. If there was a closed door to the room - so the passer-by has no chance to see the person in the room (or a shadow, etc) and is relying entirely on hearing through door/walls, I would impose disadvantage on the WIS check.

 

[Xetheral]

I can't answer for [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], but I'd be surprised if his answer is very different from the following:

The person in the room wants to be unnoticed by those passing by it, and so stands still and quietly. Mechanically, this is resolved as a DEX check for that character. Anyone passing by the room is entitled to a WIS check (active or passive as appropriate) to see if they notice the person who is trying to be as still and quite as possible. If there was a closed door to the room - so the passer-by has no chance to see the person in the room (or a shadow, etc) and is relying entirely on hearing through door/walls, I would impose disadvantage on the WIS check.

As it turns out, that's not what he answered. (See above.) Instead, whether or not he'd let the character hide would depend on an (arguably unknowable) future encounter distance.

As far as your answer goes, are you applying Stealth and Perception proficiency those checks? In other words, are you simply allowing the hider to Hide as normal in the empty room, but potentially adding circumstantial disadvantage to the perception roll? Or are you not allowing the hider to take advantage of the hiding rules at all and requiring bare attribute checks?

The latter would seem silly, considering that in 5e hiding is mostly about remaining unheard, since (other than the special abilities under debate, and a disagreement over remaining hidden in light obscurement) hiding never helps the hider remain unseen. But if it is the former, and one can hide in an empty room without anything to hide behind, then I don't see any way that Hriston's interpretation (that you support) of Crawford's Sage Advice is consistent: if one can always hide in an empty room without anything to hide behind, how could Crawford have been referring to a Halfling's ability to "vanish" (i.e. change state and become hidden as discussed with Hriston above) behind another person when unobserved (e.g. in an otherwise empty room)?

 

[seebs]

Really don't care. You changed the context, so it doesn't matter.

Yes. The context of "full view" is specifically the issue of whether or not you are actually observed at a given time, or concealed from observation. In the context of a discussion about hiding in 5e, anyway.