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

[pemerton]

As far as your answer goes, are you applying Stealth and Perception proficiency those checks?

Yes. The proficiency is a modifier to the attribute check.

As it turns out, that's not what he answered.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

What [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] says here seems pretty similar to what I said: if there is someone outside the room who is within hearing distance, the person in the room is not in full view (because of walls) and hence has a chance to hide.

I don't know when Hriston would call for the DEX check, but that seems to me to be more a matter of table conventions rather than deep principle. I don't know if Hriston would impose disadvantage for trying to hear someone through a shut door, but that seems to me to be in the domain of "rulings not rules".

I also don't know what Hriston's take would be on a person walking past the open door and having a chance to notice the still, quiet human if s/he looks in but perhaps not actually doing so. If the passer-by has no other reason to suspect that someone is trying to hid in the room I am inclined to assume that is part of the WIS check (because those who are more perceptive are more likely to look randomly into doorways that they pass), but another GM might take the view that if there is an open doorway then (in the absence of some other distraction) the person inside is in full view and hence has no chance to remain hidden. Again, that seems to be in the domain of GM adjudication and/or table negotiation.

whether or not he'd let the character hide would depend on an (arguably unknowable) future encounter distance.

I take it that what Hriston is saying is that if there is no one around to notice you, then there's nothing to hide from. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that only seems to make a difference as to when the DEX check is rolled.

If you think about it from the point of the fiction, all a DEX (Stealth) check represents is trying to be still and quiet in circumstances where you're not able to be directly seen by someone. (If they can see you, then even being still and quiet won't let you evade their notice.) I'm sure Hriston accepts that someone who was the last person on earth could stand in a room and try to be still and quiet - that person may not know that s/he is the last person on earth, and be trying to stay hidden from the others s/he thinks are out there.

But if, in fact, no one is going to come by then we don't need to make the DEX check because we don't need to oppose it to any WIS checks.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Observers see things. Your second sentence is in different context than is used in the sage advice and tweet. Being able to hide with nearby observers means that you can hide while being seen. Look at the definitions below.

ob·serv·er
əbˈzərvər/Submit
noun
a person who watches or notices something.

ob·serve
əbˈzərv/Submit
verb
1.
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

 

[pemerton]

Observers see things.

Spy A to Spy B: "Be careful - there are observers nearby, and we don't want to be spotted by them!"

Those nearby observers haven't seen the spies yet.

For extra fun, let's have Spy B be a halfling, who tags quietly along behind Spy A. When A is spotted, B has a chance to remain unnoticed. Lucky B!

 

[Xetheral]

Yes. The proficiency is a modifier to the attribute check.

Ok. So Hriston has agreed that Crawford, by using the word "vanish", is saying that a Halfling can change state (i.e. begin hiding). You've agreed that Crawford's sentence describing what a Halfling can do is in the same context of the previous sentence (i.e. hiding in full view). You've now also said that you'd permit a Dex (Stealth) check when anyone is alone in an empty room to hide from people outside the room.

Given the above, can you please provide an example of a situation where a Halfling can begin hiding but a human cannot? Because I can't think of one, and without such a situation, Hriston's interpretation of Crawford's sentence about Halflings renders the sentence meaningless.

What @Hriston says here seems pretty similar to what I said: if there is someone outside the room who is within hearing distance, the person in the room is not in full view (because of walls) and hence has a chance to hide.

Perhaps I'm too hung up on Hriston's use of the phrase "encounter distance", but his usage of such makes your answers to my question appear fundamentally distinct. It's not terribly important though, since you've said you'd permit a human to make a hide check (or otherwise begin hiding, even if the check is rolled later) in an empty room, now I'm primarily curious whether you can provide the example I asked for above.

I take it that what Hriston is saying is that if there is no one around to notice you, then there's nothing to hide from. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that only seems to make a difference as to when the DEX check is rolled.

Which again raises the question of what Crawford meant with his sentence on halflings, given Hriston's contention that Crawford means that a Halfling can begin hiding while in full view, but only if no one else is around to notice. Hence my request for the example above.

If you can provide the example, great--I can learn more about how your interpretation is more coherent than it seems. If you can't, I'm curious whether your interpretation departs from Hriston's (perhaps you're not willing to agree with him that "vanish" necessarily implies a change of state?), or whether you disagree with my logic somewhere.

 

[pemerton]

can you please provide an example of a situation where a Halfling can begin hiding but a human cannot?

I don't know what particular weight you are giving to "begin hiding" - I read your post but to be honest am not 100% sure that I followed every move your were making. To me, "beginning hiding" just means being still and quiet and hoping not to be noticed. (Which means it will auto-fail if you can be seen.)

That said, here's an example that makes sense to me (adapted from my post just upthread of yours):

A is a human spy. B is a halfling spy. They are a team.

A to B: "Be careful - there are observers nearby, and we don't want to be spotted by them!"

Those nearby observers haven't seen the spies yet.

B tags quietly along behind Spy A. When A is spotted, B has a chance to remain unnoticed (contested DEX (Stealth) vs WIS (Perception) check).​

I will state what I think is going on using the Sage Advice language:

Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. B, though, who is a lightfoot halfling, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, such as A. B's hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot B: “I see you behind your team-mate, you tricksy halfling!​

If the observant foes WIS check fails, however, then B has indeed vanished behind A.

(The above is all predicated on it being the general case that people can't hide behind other people, because when you're behind someone else you're still in full view.)

 

[Xetheral]

I don't know what particular weight you are giving to "begin hiding" - I read your post but to be honest am not 100% sure that I followed every move your were making. To me, "beginning hiding" just means being still and quiet and hoping not to be noticed. (Which means it will auto-fail if you can be seen.)

Let me see if I can be more clear then. Ultimately, I'm trying to discuss whether Crawford's statement on Halflings (and Wood Elves) is ambiguous as you and Hriston claim, or if holes that have arguably been identified in your interpretation render it implausible to the point that the ambiguity disappears.

The original argument Hriston put forth (that you joined) in regards to Wood Elves was that Crawford was saying that Wood Elves who had previously taken the hide action while unobserved could merely remain hidden while in natural light obscurement. Others argued that Crawford was saying that Wood Elves in natural light obscurement could take the hide action to become hidden (i.e. “begin hiding”) even while observed.

The conversation has since moved on to Halflings. In the exchange ending in post #832, Hriston agreed that Crawford’s use of the word “vanish” implied a “change of state”, and thus could not be referring merely to remaining hidden because remaining hidden doesn’t involve a change of state.

I believe that concession is fatal to Hriston’s argument that Crawford was ambiguous with respect to whether Halflings can take the hide action while observed. This is because (as you have agreed) the context of Crawford’s sentence about the Halfling ability is the same as the context of his preceding sentence, namely, hiding “in full view”, because of Crawford’s use of the adverb “though”. (For a more thorough exposition, see the above link.)

Hriston has since countered (indirectly, he wasn’t replying to me) that “in full view” does not mean “observed”. His newest argument is therefore that Crawford was saying that a halfling can take the hide action in full view so long as no one is present. I argued that this was ridiculous in post #887, which sparked the current exchange between you and me.

Since both you and Hriston apparently would indeed permit a human to take the hide action while in an empty room, I’m left wondering what circumstances exist under Hriston’s latest interpretation of Crawford where a halfling could take the hide action but a human cannot. It’s evidently not an empty room, because that doesn’t qualify as “in full view” from the people (if any) outside it. So I asked you for a different example where a halfling was in full view and no one was present where you would permit the halfling to take the hide action but would not permit a human to do that same.

Does that make sense?

I believe I can infer your answer from your example below.

That said, here's an example that makes sense to me (adapted from my post just upthread of yours):

A is a human spy. B is a halfling spy. They are a team.

A to B: "Be careful - there are observers nearby, and we don't want to be spotted by them!"

Those nearby observers haven't seen the spies yet.

B tags quietly along behind Spy A. When A is spotted, B has a chance to remain unnoticed (contested DEX (Stealth) vs WIS (Perception) check).​

I will state what I think is going on using the Sage Advice language:

Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. B, though, who is a lightfoot halfling, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, such as A. B's hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot B: “I see you behind your team-mate, you tricksy halfling!​

If the observant foes WIS check fails, however, then B has indeed vanished behind A.

(The above is all predicated on it being the general case that people can't hide behind other people, because when you're behind someone else you're still in full view.)

It’s unclear when exactly the Halfling is taking the Hide action. It sounds like you might not require a declaration (and a roll) at your table until later, but if it were my table the halfling has effectively taken the Hide action if he agrees to comply with A’s directive to “be careful-there are observers nearby”. Regardless of when you roll, I think you would agree that from this point forward, the halfling has a chance to be hidden behind the human? If so, from a rules standpoint, that’s when the hide action was taken.

At the time the Halfling starts "being careful", from your reply to my empty-room hypothetical, may I correctly infer that you would consider both the halfling and the human to not be “in full view” of the nearby observers? If so, to this point you and I agree, even if we’d make the roll itself at different points in time.

Where we disagree is when you say “If the observant foes WIS check fails, however, then B has indeed vanished behind A.” As I discussed in the first of the above links, every definition of “vanish” that I looked up either required or emphasized the sudden nature of the disappearance. In your hypothetical, the halfling hasn’t disappeared from anyone at all, let alone suddenly. The observers were, and (assuming they didn’t beat the Halfling’s Hide check) still are unaware of the Halfling’s existence.

Ergo, I do not agree that the halfling has “vanished” behind A at the point in time where A becomes observed. It’s slightly more reasonable (but not much) to say that the halfling vanished behind A at the point in time where the halfling started to “be careful” (i.e., at my table, took the Hide action) because at least something at that point changed state. But at that point the Halfling wasn’t in full view from the nearby observers, and I believe you’d let a human start to “be careful” at the same time the halfling did*? Accordingly, I don’t see any way where your example fits Crawford’s statement that a halfling (and only a halfling) can “vanish” behind another creature (while in full view).

*(Even though a second human would automatically be seen at the same time A is, the human starting to “be careful” at the same time the halfling would have matters if the duo might be heard by the nearby observers prior to being spotted.)

Based on your use of the word “vanish” above, I’m concluding that you disagree with Hriston (and most everyone else) and believe that “vanish” can plausibly mean “remain hidden” and does not require a “change of state”? If so, your argument is valid, even though I find your use of “vanish” utterly at odds with the normal usage of the term. I therefore cannot agree with your claim that Crawford’s statement regarding Halflings is ambiguous--your interpretation is simply too much of a stretch for me to consider plausible.

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], in pemerton’s example above, do you consider the human and the halfling to be “in full view” of the “nearby observers” at the time the halfling starts to “be careful” (i.e. takes the hide action)? If so, can you please explain why the duo are in full view in pemerton’s example but not in my empty room example? If not, can you please provide a different example where a halfling, but not a human, can take the hide action while simultaneously “in full view” and “unobserved”?

 

[Maxperson]

Spy A to Spy B: "Be careful - there are observers nearby, and we don't want to be spotted by them!"

Those nearby observers haven't seen the spies yet.

For extra fun, let's have Spy B be a halfling, who tags quietly along behind Spy A. When A is spotted, B has a chance to remain unnoticed. Lucky B!

Spy A to Spy B: "Be careful - there are cabbages nearby, and we don't want to be spotted by them!"

Anyone can say anything. It doesn't make everything said correct.

Spy A to Spy B: "Be careful - there are potential observers nearby, and we don't want to be spotted by them!"

That is the correct way to say it.

The definitions of observe and observers involve actual sight, not the possibility of sight. No sight, no observer.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The meaning of "in full view" is not restricted to, or even very well glossed as "being observed" or "clearly seen", but rather as "clearly visible" or "within an unobstructed range of vision". That is how I'm interpreting the phrase. No actual viewer is required to be immediately present for someone to be in full view, only that vision to their location is not blocked. So as long as they are not heavily obscured or behind a large enough obstruction, they are in full view.

No it means in full view from someone as referred in the phrase because the statement is otherwise untrue, taken the fact that you normally CAN hide from someone you're in in full view of but yet not seen.


"Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view."

 

[pemerton]

Ultimately, I'm trying to discuss whether Crawford's statement on Halflings (and Wood Elves) is ambiguous as you and Hriston claim

Fair enough. I hope you're not shocked that I continue to regard it as such.

It’s unclear when exactly the Halfling is taking the Hide action.

I tend to only worry about action economy matters in action economy contexts (combat being the most salient, but not the sole one). In light of the fiction, when the halfling B starts being careful to stay quietly behind A would seem to be the relevant time.

It sounds like you might not require a declaration (and a roll) at your table until later

Depending on the actual table dynamics of some particular episode of play, we might be very precise or very relaxed about calling for a clear declaration. (Eg in a different context - Buring Wheel - there is a skill called Conspicuous. If B had both Stealth and Conspicuous, and at the table it had more-or-less been taken for granted that B was being stealthy, then a sudden declaration of Conspicuousness might raise some eyebrows. Whereas if things are just going along and then I as GM mention the observers, it would be reasonable for B's player to say "OK, but remember I was hiding behind A!")

The declaration could also be divorced from the check, depending again on very local variations in what is actually happening at the table. (Again an example just to illustrate: if B's player had delcared the stealth either explicitly or implicitly, but nothing is at stake because there are no observers, then on "say 'yes' or roll the dice" principles I probably wouldn't call for a roll - but then if, for whatever reason in terms of the unfolding narration of events at the table, some observers came into the picture, it would be time to call for a roll of the dice - though no new action would be taking place - the roll would reflect a change of the dramatic situation at the table, not the infiction circumstances of B.)

At the time the Halfling starts "being careful", from your reply to my empty-room hypothetical, may I correctly infer that you would consider both the halfling and the human to not be “in full view” of the nearby observers?

Agreed. They are not in full view of the observers.

Assuming, though, that it is light rather than dark and that they are not behind a wall or anything similar, it would be quite reasonable to describe them as being in full view or in plain sight simpliciter. Eg "We didn't get seen, even though we were in full view! Luckily the observers had their backs to us." Spy A could even say, "We didn't get seen, even though we were in full view! - because the observers had their backs to us, we luckily weren't in full view of them!"

Also: if the observers are listening, the player of the human might need to make a DEX (Stealth) check to see whether or not s/he goes unheard. Once A and B enter into the observers' field of vision (with adequate illumination, no distractions, etc) then for A the jig is up, but not necessarily for B (who is a tricksy halfling).

Where we disagree is when you say “If the observant foes WIS check fails, however, then B has indeed vanished behind A.” As I discussed in the first of the above links, every definition of “vanish” that I looked up either required or emphasized the sudden nature of the disappearance. In your hypothetical, the halfling hasn’t disappeared from anyone at all

I think you're putting a weight on "vanish" that it's idiomatic usage won't bear.

Eg imagine a novelist writing a passage about a magician practising her tricks. No one else is in the room. She practises her disappearing act, and it works (eg the flash powder goes off as intended, letting her slip into her magic box or whatever). If the author wrote, "As she vanished into her magic box, she thought to herself . . . [something suitably poignant or comic or whatever is appropriate to the story]," that would not be odd at all. It's like spy A's reference to "nearby observers" - meaning people ready or hoping to observe, not necessarily actually observing. Likewise someone - like the magician in my imagined story - can vanish even if there's no on there to see them do so.

The halfling in my example vanishes, in the sense of "ceases to be visible in an ordinary fashion", upon stepping behind A.

Another example of that sort of usage - the sniper or bird watcher who puts on his/her camouflage suit, slips down into the grass/foliage, and vanishes! There is no implication in that description that any person or other animal was watching the event take place.

There is no general requirement, for the use of "observer" or "vanish" or "in plain sight" or "in full view", that there be an actual observed thing or an actual seeing/viewing being. These terms can be, and often are, used in a context that presupposes a hypothetical/potential observer, or a "field of vision" as an abstract conception rather than something literally obtaining in relation to some concrete beings concrete sensory organs.

 

[pemerton]

The definitions of observe and observers involve actual sight, not the possibility of sight. No sight, no observer.

Someone can be a forward observer but not notice anything because (eg) he's drunk. Someone can be in an observation balloon yet not notice anything because (eg) it's camouflaged.

"To observe" can mean to see, or to look at. It can also mean "to watch". That is to say, it has both a transitive and an intransitive use. And "observer" is cognate. It can mean a viewer or a watcher. And a watcher can fail. Eg not all bird watchers see the birds. Not all those who are watching for the enemy notice them, because sometimes the enemy sneak past ("They got right past the observation post!" I doesn't cease to be an observation post because the observers in it aren't very good.)

You are making claims about usage that are not borne out neither by dictionary meanings (eg you are completely disregarding the intransitive use of "observe") nor by native-speaker intuitions about a range of acceptable cases.

EDIT: To connect this to my reply to [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] - something can be "in plain sight" yet unseen (because no one is there to see it); and something can be "in plain sight" yet unseen by someone in whose field of vision it is, because the person is not sufficiently perceptive (this is how camouflagae works). Hence a person who is the only person in a room can correctly say "I couldn't see it, even though it was in plain sight!" - eg, to borrow [MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION]'s example, of the car key sitting in a mess of things on the table.

Similarly, something can be "in full view" although there are no viewers, or any potential viewers don't actually see it (again, because it's camouflaged, or they have spots in front of their eyes, or whatever). "It was in full view, but I didn't see it - I was too distracted by the basketballers" - said by someone who does the "monkey suit through black and white basketballers" test.