D&D 5E 5e Surprise and Hiding Rules Interpretation

[NotAYakk]

Wow, you really don't like hiding, and are willing to twist wording to make it as useless as possible.

"If you make a hide check, you are covered by the unseen attackers rules".
"Hidden -- unseen and unheard"

The plain language again keeps on saying hidden is supposed to use the unseen attackers rules for the benefit you get from hiding. You can find ambiguity in any text, and your goal seems to be to restrict what "hidden" does as much as possible that is at all consistent with the text.

You should simplify your rules at your table. They should be "Do not try to use hide at my table." Would be less painful for players.

There is literally no point in hiding; any circumstance where you hide, to get the benefit you must have been unseen and unheard, which would have granted you all of the benefits of hiding before you tried to hide, with the one exception of your restrictive interpretation of how surprise works (an unseen and unheard person doesn't surprise unless they are hidden). After that first round of combat, hiding does basically nothing.

You nullified the "on a successful hide check, you gain the benefits described under unseen and unheard", because you require both hiding and unseen and unheard to grant those benefits! The check did nothing.

Which means the rule was pointless to start with.

 

[Flamestrike]

If anyone who is uncertain about how the designers of the game felt that combat should start want to hear from a designer, check out this Sage Advice video by Jeremy Crawford, the lead designer of 5e. He makes it clear that in the "surprise" dagger attack situation, that's an initiative roll (not surprise). He also makes it clear that surprise is meant for an ambush, and that it's resolved with Stealth checks. Take a listen

Roll for Initiative! The ins and outs of beginning combat - w/ Jeremy Crawford

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

At 7:30 JC literally states that you can be surprised 'when going shopping for bagels, and suddenly the vendor has a maul in his hands' and in other such circumstances when you are 100 percent not expecting violence.

 

[NotAYakk]

At 7:30 JC literally states that you can be surprised 'when going shopping for bagels, and suddenly the vendor has a maul in his hands' and in other such circumstances when you are 100 percent not expecting violence.

I don't think you get how this game -- namely, the game of constructing this FAQ in this thread -- works.

JC didn't say that the vendor wasn't also invisible as well as having a maul. Did he say "the visible vendor"? Nope.

So the RAW text doesn't rule out the possibility that you must be hidden. Which means the RAW states they must be hidden.

So by RAW you can still ensure that hiding and surprise are as useless as possible. Which is the goal of this FAQ.

Now, some might say that the FAQ doesn't say that its purpose is to make hiding and surprise as useless as possible. But it says it is rules, and rules are made by rulers, and ruler is something dominating something else, and when you dominate something you restrict it, and this is rules about hiding, so it is campaign-specific restrictions on how hiding works. The first sentence of a work describes what the work is about, so this work is about restricting hiding and surprise. By the Faq As Written (FAW).

I kid, but this thread, well, it gets pretty ridiculous.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

Based on the observation above from discussions here (since hidden creatures cannot always use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule), I concede that there probably isn't even an operational definition to be had of Hidden, and we're changing ours to the following:

• Definition of being "Hidden" : Being "hidden" from an opposing creature means that the DM has determined that the circumstances you find yourself in are appropriate for hiding.

 

[NotAYakk]

"Hidden" -- you are hidden if the DM says so. Being hidden does nothing except permit surprise. Those with bonus action hide features can stuff it, as it has no use whatsoever. The hide action does nothing; the text that says "you gain the benefit of the unseen attackers rules" is a null, because everyone has the benefit of those rules when they are unseen, and hiding never ever helps you be unseen.

 

[Jon Gilliam]

I don't think you get how this game -- namely, the game of constructing this FAQ in this thread -- works.

JC didn't say that the vendor wasn't also invisible as well as having a maul. Did he say "the visible vendor"? Nope.

So the RAW text doesn't rule out the possibility that you must be hidden. Which means the RAW states they must be hidden.

So by RAW you can still ensure that hiding and surprise are as useless as possible. Which is the goal of this FAQ.

Now, some might say that the FAQ doesn't say that its purpose is to make hiding and surprise as useless as possible. But it says it is rules, and rules are made by rulers, and ruler is something dominating something else, and when you dominate something you restrict it, and this is rules about hiding, so it is campaign-specific restrictions on how hiding works. The first sentence of a work describes what the work is about, so this work is about restricting hiding and surprise. By the Faq As Written (FAW).

I kid, but this it gets pretty ridiculous.

Actually, you don't get to tell me the goal of my group's FAQ, because that's us. If you don't think the discussion is relevant or important, you're certainly free to use your time in other ways.

Here's how this doc is presented to my players (copied from our Facebook group's post):

What's up with this Rules Interpretation doc?

Here is the plan: this is a living document and as we have discussions, it is updated with the latest group interpretation of the rules for my campaign. I make the final decision about what goes in the document, but I promise to hear out completely any discussions or arguments about the contents. All arguments should be about interpreting the source material : 5e rulebooks and Sage Advice sources, rather than arguments from first principles (it's about what the designers wrote and intended, not about how we individually think it should be or should have been).

During play, you and the DM can refer to this document with the same authority that would come with referring to any of the rulebooks. Out of play, you can make your argument for why the document differs from RAW and needs to change.

My campaign is meant to be default-RAW : meaning that RAW is intended to decide everything unless I say that I'm intentionally departing from RAW as a one-off experiment (which I can do at my discretion), or making a case for a house rule (in which case we'll need group consensus).
If you haven't already started to become familiar with the doc, please take the time to give it a look. What's in here is informed and guided by a lot of discussions here with all of the players, but I want to make sure everyone has a chance to voice any concerns.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that's not the definition of hidden, that's simply specifying what subset of all the circumstances possible for hiding are always required to use the Unseen Attackers and Target rule. For example, you could hide and then begin movement from hiding. As you're doing your movement, you come out of darkness and through a patch of fog where your opponent can see you but not clearly, and then at the end of your movement you're back in darkness again. While in darkness, you're both hidden and able to use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule, but during your movement through the patch of fog, although you remain hidden, you could not attack at advantage using that rule as you are seen just not clearly.

The side box on p. 177 of the PHB makes it clear that being seen or heard are only guidelines. The errata for the PHB even specifically updates that language to "You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly …”, adding the last word. Also if you listen to the Sage Advice video, posted above, Jeremy Crawford makes it clear that hiding takes into account any other criteria the DM believes relevant, and if you listen to this Sage Advice podcast, the designers make it even more clear that they intend for the DM to decide what circumstances are appropriate for hiding, including all of the following:

• any specific traits or abilities
• whether the creature can see you
• whether the creature can hear you
• whether the creature can perceive your presence in any way
• whether the creature is distracted
• whether the creature is in a high state of alert or especially vigilant
• whether the creature is able to determine your position
• whether the creature perceives your presence as a potential attacker
• whether you are leaving any signs of your passage

So, being both unseen and unheard isn't the definition of Hiding under RAW. Gargoyles hide in plain sight, as can 10th level rangers. If you'd just been sprayed by a skunk and smell awful, the DM could decide you're not hidden. The best you can do to provide a definition of hiding is to approach it operationally ... which leads to our definition:

• Definition of being "Hidden" : Being "hidden" from an opposing creature means that you could attack that creature without them being able to perceive that your attack is coming.

That is wide enough to encompass all the other guidelines as well as this condition from the PHB p. 177:

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."

With that provision, it makes clear that being "seen" doesn't mean being in plain sight of a creature, and takes into account the creature's mental. Even an invisible creature that remains unheard may not be hidden. PHB p. 177:

"An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it has to remain quiet".

Jeremy Crawford in the video I linked to previously mentions how an invisible creature jostling a table or causing footprints in the dust could be given away by "signs of its passage," for example.

It's not written as set of circumstances which make it possible to hide. It doesn't say, "If it's possible to hide - unseen and unheard - when you make an attack..." It says very clearly that if you are hidden if you are unseen and unheard. If I am invisible and I cast silence upon myself, I am hidden. The DM should call for a stealth roll so that there's something to roll against such as foot prints and such.

 

[Flamestrike]

Actually, you don't get to tell me the goal of my group's FAQ, because that's us. If you don't think the discussion is relevant or important, you're certainly free to use your time in other ways.

I'll happily state that if your group needs a FAQ like this, then it seems your table likely has bigger problems.

Im not saying you're playing wrong here either. It just reeks to me that you may have issues at your table.

I can rock up to DM an AL game with totally different players, and not need anything of the sort, because Im the DM, I make rulings, and that's just how it goes.

If you have a problem with rules lawyers to the extent you need a muti-page document, including wordy FAQ on something as basic as the Hiding rules, then your problem most likely lies somewhere else other than the hiding rules.

If the players want to know the rules on hiding, hand them the PHB. During actual play, just DM those rules. If a player whines about it, correct him, and again refer him to the PHB, and remind him you're the DM and that's how it goes. If he does it again, be firmer. If he does it a third time, show him the door.

 

[Maxperson]

New FAQ based on my discussion with @Maxperson :

• Can I always use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule if I'm hidden from my opponent? No, the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule is more strict than the criteria for hiding, requiring you to be both unseen and unheard. An example would be if you hid and then began moving, taking you through an area where you're seen but not clearly seen. As you're doing your movement, you come out of darkness and through a patch of fog where your opponent can see you but not clearly, and then at the end of your movement you're back in darkness again. While in darkness, you're both hidden and able to use the Unseen Attackers and Targets rule, but during your movement through the patch of fog, although you remain hidden, you could not attack at advantage using that rule as you are seen just not clearly. As another example, if your character is invisible but walks through a patch of flour on the floor, during the movement through the flour your character might not be hidden since their signs of passage are giving away their location. However they are still an Unseen Attacker and still an Unseen Target for purposes of that rule.

Right, but someone who is invisible and silent with a silence spell, meets that more strict criteria and is also hidden. At no point is he ever visible and at no point is he ever heard. There could be other circumstances such as the flour which MIGHT allow detection, but absent those unusual circumstances the invisible and silent creature is hidden and get the advantages of such.

 

[SkidAce]

Using the "stand next to you" scenario, IMHO, if the person was disguised well enough or acting non hostile enough, the THREAT is hidden, and they could attack and potentially surprise.

edit: spelling