D&D 5E "when circumstances are appropriate for hiding"

[FrogReaver]

The rules dont say that, though. They say "clearly seen" and leave the definition of "clearly" up to the DM. So, your claim that "he can see you to" isn't the rule, it's your ruling.


Which is your preference and your prerogative to run it like that. The rules, however, fully support ducking in and out from behind a you-shaped rock every turn, provided the DM rules that way. This is the beauty of the stealth rules: they left it open so that permissive hiding is as RAW as limited hiding.

That ruling is supported by the rule that enemies are aware for signs of danger in combat. Is it spelled out explicitly?. Absolutely not and thus this discussion. But you can't pretend that enemies staying aware for signs of danger in combat doesn't at least offer some support to the idea that hiding in combat by default and without DM exception is hard.

You see I agree it's the dms call. It's the notion of "nerfing" and that somehow the game without DM exception means hiding in combat is very very common that I take issue with. Stop framing it that way and we may find some common ground.

 

[jasper]

.....Many will reply that it means it's the DM's job to determine if you can hide under a given set of circumstances, making hiding a matter of "DM, may I?"

....?

Ding Ding Ding we have a winning answer to all the hiding questions.
I real life both my parents were Navy Seals and my grandparents were ninjas but the four eye freak jasper always shafts me during the game.
I have stole his wallet while he been picking up his dice.
I have stole his dice while he been rolling them.
I have stole his spouse (BIG MISTAKE THERE WERE NOT TAKE BACKS).
If I can do something in real life I should be able to do in game!

 

[Guest 6801328]

The rules dont say that, though. They say "clearly seen" and leave the definition of "clearly" up to the DM. So, your claim that "he can see you to" isn't the rule, it's your ruling.


Which is your preference and your prerogative to run it like that. The rules, however, fully support ducking in and out from behind a you-shaped rock every turn, provided the DM rules that way. This is the beauty of the stealth rules: they left it open so that permissive hiding is as RAW as limited hiding.

I don't disagree with any of that, but it seems like you are changing your position (unless I mis-read it earlier). I thought you were arguing that the designers' intent was for rogues to be using stealth every round, and now you are just saying that it is a possible/permissible interpretation of the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ding Ding Ding we have a winning answer to all the hiding questions.
I real life both my parents were Navy Seals and my grandparents were ninjas but the four eye freak jasper always shafts me during the game.
I have stole his wallet while he been picking up his dice.
I have stole his dice while he been rolling them.
I have stole his spouse (BIG MISTAKE THERE WERE NOT TAKE BACKS).
If I can do something in real life I should be able to do in game!

This was a surreal post, but I think I agree with the intent: I have occasionally snuck up on people (sometimes unintentionally) when I should have been in plain sight, and I have zero training.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't disagree with any of that, but it seems like you are changing your position (unless I mis-read it earlier). I thought you were arguing that the designers' intent was for rogues to be using stealth every round, and now you are just saying that it is a possible/permissible interpretation of the rules.

It is, pursuant to DM approval. Again, if the DM okays hiding behind a rock, then the rules allow you to do it every turn. There's a distinction between what the rules allow, which is very permissive and clearly designed to be so, and what rulings your DM makes using that permissive framework.

Or, another way, the rules don't say that you're seen when you shoot your bow from behind that rock: the rules allow your DM to say if your seen. If the DM says no, the rules agree. If the DM says yes, the rules agree. For this state to obtain, the rules must be very permissive (intentionally so).

 

[Ovinomancer]

That ruling is supported by the rule that enemies are aware for signs of danger in combat. Is it spelled out explicitly?. Absolutely not and thus this discussion. But you can't pretend that enemies staying aware for signs of danger in combat doesn't at least offer some support to the idea that hiding in combat by default and without DM exception is hard.

You see I agree it's the dms call. It's the notion of "nerfing" and that somehow the game without DM exception means hiding in combat is very very common that I take issue with. Stop framing it that way and we may find some common ground.

Aware for danger means they aren't going to not notice you entering room from that passageway over there even if they're fighting your friend Bob. It doesn't mean they have an eagle eye awareness of the whole battlefield at all times and will notice that Halfling peeking out from around that curtain. It's a general state for which someone trying to hide is the exception. If you aren't trying to hide, you will generally be noticed. If you are trying to hide (pursuant to DM ruling), the success is uncertain and you make a roll. This is the overarching concept behind 5e - specific trumps general.

The bit immediately following the "alert for danger) is that they'll see if If you come out of hiding. When you can hide is up to DM permission, so, once again we're back to DM judgement and not the rules maim the call.

 

[FrogReaver]

Aware for danger means they aren't going to not notice you entering room from that passageway over there even if they're fighting your friend Bob. It doesn't mean they have an eagle eye awareness of the whole battlefield at all times and will notice that Halfling peeking out from around that curtain. It's a general state for which someone trying to hide is the exception. If you aren't trying to hide, you will generally be noticed. If you are trying to hide (pursuant to DM ruling), the success is uncertain and you make a roll. This is the overarching concept behind 5e - specific trumps general.

The bit immediately following the "alert for danger) is that they'll see if If you come out of hiding. When you can hide is up to DM permission, so, once again we're back to DM judgement and not the rules maim the call.

No. what you are describing as the rule for aware for danger in combat is not the rule but a DM exception to that rule. It's fine to have them but call it what it is.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It is, pursuant to DM approval. Again, if the DM okays hiding behind a rock, then the rules allow you to do it every turn. There's a distinction between what the rules allow, which is very permissive and clearly designed to be so, and what rulings your DM makes using that permissive framework.

Um, ok. Still feels like you changed your position about designer intent, but whatever.

Or, another way, the rules don't say that you're seen when you shoot your bow from behind that rock: the rules allow your DM to say if your seen. If the DM says no, the rules agree. If the DM says yes, the rules agree. For this state to obtain, the rules must be very permissive (intentionally so).

For the record, I wasn't claiming that if you can see your target he can see you is an official 5e Rule(tm), more of a statement of what's generally true. Like "what goes up, must come down". That's not a Rule, either, and there are circumstances when it isn't true, and even when it should be true the DM is entirely free to override it.

The point being that if because i-c-u-u-c-me is generally true, and the designers say that you can't hide when you can be seen, it strikes me as improbable that their intent, for the default case, is for rogues to hide every round. Yes, they left wiggle room for people who want to play that way, but I highly doubt that's the way they play themselves.

EDIT: Even though I think it's cheesy, the sort of situation where I would allow it is if (using either grid or totm) it is determined that the rogue's target has an imperative distraction (e.g. getting attacked) from the opposite direction. In that case the Stealth roll essentially determines if the rogue gets his timing just right.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Um, ok. Still feels like you changed your position about designer intent, but whatever.

The designers intended the rules to allow you to hide every turn, and intentionally encouraged this for rogues. The designers ALSO intended that DMs would do the work at their own tables on how hiding works for them, and so intentionally designed in the bit about DMs having the final say on when it's appropriate to hide. The former is required to provide the broadest base support for hiding. The latter is requires for DMs to set their own benchmarks.

So, yes, the rules as written are intentionally designed to be very permissive for hiding.

For the record, I wasn't claiming that if you can see your target he can see you is an official 5e Rule(tm), more of a statement of what's generally true. Like "what goes up, must come down". That's not a Rule, either, and there are circumstances when it isn't true, and even when it should be true the DM is entirely free to override it.

But that's not generally true. Play a few rounds of a PvP FPS and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion.

The point being that if because i-c-u-u-c-me is generally true, and the designers say that you can't hide when you can be seen, it strikes me as improbable that their intent, for the default case, is for rogues to hide every round. Yes, they left wiggle room for people who want to play that way, but I highly doubt that's the way they play themselves.

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal isn't exactly the model you should be trying to emulate.

And why, if they didn't intend for rogues to be able to hide often (pursuant to DM ruling) would they have 1) made rogues have access to the stealth skill and expertise in it and 2) provided a mechanism where the rogue can attempt to hide as a bonus action starting at level 2? The mechanical design of rogues clearly indicates that hiding often is something they can do, if conditions permit (which is a DM call). The design of the rogue class clearly allows for attempting to hide every single round of combat they're in (if the conditions obtain, the rules and abilities of the rogue encourage hiding). Your intuition is a preference for how you want to play, not what the rules clearly are built to allow.

As for the way the designers play themselves, who cares? What they do at home is vanishingly unimportant. Maybe they play GURPS?

EDIT: Even though I think it's cheesy, the sort of situation where I would allow it is if (using either grid or totm) it is determined that the rogue's target has an imperative distraction (e.g. getting attacked) from the opposite direction. In that case the Stealth roll essentially determines if the rogue gets his timing just right.

Alright, I'll bite, why is it cheesy for a rogue to hide and get hidden attacker benefits most turns?

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

It is NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can hide or not. If you think it is, you not playing 5e. Sorry but you are just completely wrong about that. The RAW says you CAN DO the HIDE action; as long as you have something to hide behind. This is RAI as well, as you can easily confirm.

It is similarly NOT down to DM adjudication whether you can attack or not. Both things are core rules. If you have a weapon equipped and there is an enemy in reach, you CAN do the ATTACK action.

Neither of these things are DM adjudication issues, they are core rules of 5e.

When you do the attack action, you roll to hit, add mods and DM compares to AC, tells you if you are successful and get to roll damage... its all core rules clearly spelt out.

When you do the hide action, you move behind something that conceals you, roll stealth, and DM compares to PP, and later will tell you if got the unseen attacker, etc... again all core rules clearly spelt out.

The DM does build the world though, so the PCs ask and are told by the DM about what is in the world. The DM decides if there is a creature there for you to attempt to attack. The DM decides if there is a barrel there for you to attempt to hide behind. Later the DM might have his NPCs destroy the barrel, or have his creatures move out of range/run away...

However if the DM changes the core hit/attack mechanics on the fly or the core hide mechanics on the fly : he needs some appropriate reason for this one off, or he is just not playing according to actual 5e rules.

With hiding/keeping stealth, the DM might have to adjudicate, if the previously hid PC, when he runs out of his hid place keeps his stealth or not, depending on if there is anything there to perceive the PC and the perceivers basic level of distraction/etc...

You all seem to have accepted a misreading of the hiding rule; it is not difficult to hide in combat, it is difficult (maybe/DM decides) to keep your stealth if you MOVE out of your hiding place in combat. Just sticking out your head and bow to get sight on something to shoot from your hide place DOES NOT break your stealth, however if you take a shot you do break your stealth, but you always get the unseen attacker advantage. Again RAW and easy to confirm also RAI...