D&D 5E Any further clarification to Hiding in Player's Handbook?

[Mistwell]

I was active in the other thread and this is my take on it.

• You can only hide from a creature that is unable to see you. This usually means total cover or heavy obscurement unless you have a special ability that lets you hide under different circumstances.
• You can attack while hidden, if you could normally attack from that position.
• If you're hidden behind total cover, you're unable to attack your target without first moving to a position where you can see your target (as total cover works both ways). Peeking around cover is not supported by the rules.

• 
  
  I think this is where your analysis breaks down. And where the difference between "strict rules to cover everything" and "loose rules to help DMs make judgement" comes into play for this edition.
  
  Does it make sense that you can peek from behind cover and attack from hiding? Yes of course it does. But does it also make sense that if you do this, you might be spotted and thus your hidden benefits get cancelled out? Yes that also makes sense. OK, so what do the rules say for issues where you should have a chance of doing something, but your chance might be spoiled due to circumstances? They say you apply disadvantage to the check (in this case, a check to remain hidden while attacking).
  
  Which is exactly what Mearls said when asked about attacking from a place where the circumstances say your target might know where you are.
  
  That is a ruling supported by the rules. It's just that people got used to looking for a specific rule covering every specific event, that they're not so used to looking to general rules to help make a judgement for specific events not called out in the rules.
  
  

  Once your discovered, you can hide again in the same position, possibly at disadvantage if your target it being observant.

  
  Right, same sort of circumstances as peeking around cover to fire. You have a higher risk of being discovered than normal, because your opponent is more likely to be aware of your location - either because you just shot at them, or because you just peeked your head out from behind cover. Seems right to me.

 

[Uller]

Does it make sense that you can peek from behind cover and attack from hiding? Yes of course it does. But does it also make sense that if you do this, you might be spotted and thus your hidden benefits get cancelled out? Yes that also makes sense. OK, so what do the rules say for issues where you should have a chance of doing something, but your chance might be spoiled due to circumstances? They say you apply disadvantage to the check (in this case, a check to remain hidden while attacking).

Yes. Who has advantage or disadvantage depends on circumstances and is determined by the DM. If I'm playing a stealthy character and my DM tells me that any time I peek out from cover I am automatically spotted, then I am probably going to go play a wizard or some other character that doesn't rely on stealth.

 

[variant]

I think if anything is missing that has to do with stealth, it is equipment that helps with it. A cloak and other types of camouflage that breaks up your pattern should definitely have some benefit when hiding such as helping you to hide in lightly obscured areas.

 

[Uchawi]

It is a chicken and egg question. If you are seen, you can't hide, but you may hide, before they see you (contested roll). However, once you attack, you are seen, and therefore must remove yourself out of site to hide again. Even if you dodge around the corner and have some type of concealment, other that total, they can still see you. That even applies for certain light conditions except for heavily obscured. The DM may rule otherwise, but some type of baseline needs to be established.

 

[TDarien]

I think this is where your analysis breaks down. And where the difference between "strict rules to cover everything" and "loose rules to help DMs make judgement" comes into play for this edition.

Does it make sense that you can peek from behind cover and attack from hiding? Yes of course it does. But does it also make sense that if you do this, you might be spotted and thus your hidden benefits get cancelled out? Yes that also makes sense. OK, so what do the rules say for issues where you should have a chance of doing something, but your chance might be spoiled due to circumstances? They say you apply disadvantage to the check (in this case, a check to remain hidden while attacking).

Which is exactly what Mearls said when asked about attacking from a place where the circumstances say your target might know where you are.

That is a ruling supported by the rules. It's just that people got used to looking for a specific rule covering every specific event, that they're not so used to looking to general rules to help make a judgement for specific events not called out in the rules.



Right, same sort of circumstances as peeking around cover to fire. You have a higher risk of being discovered than normal, because your opponent is more likely to be aware of your location - either because you just shot at them, or because you just peeked your head out from behind cover. Seems right to me.

I don't see how peeking is supported by the rules. Either you can see your target from your position, or you can't. If you can't you must move to a position where you can, even if that's only a very small distance (say 1 foot). And even if you allow leaning out of cover, it doesn't really change anything. You still have to make yourself visible.

And please don't think that I'm not going to grant advantage in that situation 99% of the time. Because I will. However, if you hide behind total cover, you must make yourself visible in order to attack. Which might allow you to be discovered. I'm putting this in the category of "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."

I'm not going to make my players make a second stealth check to see if they are discovered when the come out of hiding to attack, that seems excessive. They're going to get advantage the vast majority of the time.

 

[Prism]

I don't see how peeking is supported by the rules. Either you can see your target from your position, or you can't. If you can't you must move to a position where you can, even if that's only a very small distance (say 1 foot). And even if you allow leaning out of cover, it doesn't really change anything. You still have to make yourself visible.

And please don't think that I'm not going to grant advantage in that situation 99% of the time. Because I will. However, if you hide behind total cover, you must make yourself visible in order to attack. Which might allow you to be discovered. I'm putting this in the category of "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."

I'm not going to make my players make a second stealth check to see if they are discovered when the come out of hiding to attack, that seems excessive. They're going to get advantage the vast majority of the time.

I agree with you but I would not allow advantage most of the time - just some of the time. I'll play it by ear to be honest, both for monsters and characters. If the player doesn't move somewhere else while hidden or waits for a period of time I'll will not allow it for any intelligent foes who are going to be watching for exactly that trick. If I was the player and the enemy goblin nipped behind a column which I was watching and then shot me with advantage I would be pretty annoyed - every round. If the DM said he was hiding I would wonder how, since I knew exactly where he was - behind the pillar. You can't hide when you enemy knows where you are. You can be out of sight by being behind cover but that's not hiding.

In a thickly brambled wood with lots of tree and bushes to skulk through (lots of cover and obscuring foliage) - not a problem. In a typical dungeon room (doorways, columns but nothing between) - not much chance at all

 

[Mistwell]

I don't see how peeking is supported by the rules.

Start from this premise - ANYTHING rationale for someone to do in any circumstance is supported by the rules in some fashion.

Stop looking for a rule to cover every specific situation, and ask yourself if any general rules cover that sort of action.

Either you can see your target from your position, or you can't.

Most rules in 5e are not intended as that black and white. They added back in a huge amount of DMs discretion to these rules, and generalize rules to deal with whatever circumstances might come up.

Peeking from outside of cover is a circumstance. It's not the normal cover, and it's not the normal "not covered", it's something that is an intervening factor that changes the circumstances.

There is a what a set of guidelines on how to deal with changed circumstances is for, and those guidelines say you generally apply either advantage or disadvantage, depending on what the circumstances are.

THAT is what is supported by the rules.

If you can't you must move to a position where you can, even if that's only a very small distance (say 1 foot). And even if you allow leaning out of cover, it doesn't really change anything. You still have to make yourself visible. And please don't think that I'm not going to grant advantage in that situation 99% of the time. Because I will. However, if you hide behind total cover, you must make yourself visible in order to attack. Which might allow you to be discovered. I'm putting this in the category of "under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."

OK so you friggen agree with me! What are you arguing about?

I'm not going to make my players make a second stealth check to see if they are discovered when the come out of hiding to attack, that seems excessive. They're going to get advantage the vast majority of the time.

Why wouldn't you give the opponent the chance to spot them though? You JUST said, "which might allow you to be discovered". So...the "might" is judged by a die roll of some kind, right? It's going to be either a stealth roll to beat a static passive perception, or a dynamic perception role to beat a prior hide roll.

 

[TDarien]

I agree with you but I would not allow advantage most of the time - just some of the time. I'll play it by ear to be honest, both for monsters and characters. If the player doesn't move somewhere else while hidden or waits for a period of time I'll will not allow it for any intelligent foes who are going to be watching for exactly that trick. If I was the player and the enemy goblin nipped behind a column which I was watching and then shot me with advantage I would be pretty annoyed - every round. If the DM said he was hiding I would wonder how, since I knew exactly where he was - behind the pillar. You can't hide when you enemy knows where you are. You can be out of sight by being behind cover but that's not hiding.

In a thickly brambled wood with lots of tree and bushes to skulk through (lots of cover and obscuring foliage) - not a problem. In a typical dungeon room (doorways, columns but nothing between) - not much chance at all

I don't agree at all, because if you're not hidden, the enemy knows where you are already, even if it can't see you. So by your rationale, you could *never* hide from a creature who is aware of you.
You can't move undetected without hiding first. It was different in previous editions where you could uses stealth as a part of your movement, but in 5e, hiding is it's own action.

If a creature hides from you behind a tree, it's really easy to go find him. All you have to do is move to a spot where you can see him, ready an action to attach him when he becomes visible, or blast him with a fireball. And Mearls specifically tweeted that it should be allowed, likely with disadvantage if you hide in the same place over an over again.

 

[TDarien]

Why wouldn't you give the opponent the chance to spot them though? You JUST said, "which might allow you to be discovered". So...the "might" is judged by a die roll of some kind, right? It's going to be either a stealth roll to beat a static passive perception, or a dynamic perception role to beat a prior hide roll.

That's just kind of the point. The opponent is going to spot them, it's just a matter of when. If you peek out of cover while hiding, you're going to be spotted, whether you attack or not. We can agree on that?

The "might" isn't judged by a die roll, at least in my mind. Hiding and searching are both actions, so calling for die rolls when those actions aren't spent seems...against the spirit of the rules. Like it's giving a character a chance to do something that she didn't earn, by spending the action to do it.

I would judge the "might" more by circumstances, a readied action, a character spending an action to search, or something of that nature. Maybe that makes me a dick DM. I don't know.

And really, I don't have a problem with your interpretation as a player. I just don't think it's necessary.

 

[Agamon]

Remove one single letter...and now "Peeing is not supported by the rules."

And it's not! How in the world do adventurers relieve themselves!?

More seriously, the game was built on the whole idea that the rules don't need to spell out everything completely. Once again, this is not Magic the Gathering that we are playing.