D&D 5E Attacking from Stealth. When you can / cant Hide - A thorough breakdown

[KarinsDad]

This really isn't an issue of vagueness.

If the rules were not vague and not crystal clear to everyone, then why did you feel compelled to write up a long post on it?


An Orc is strolling down a trail and not actively searching.

A Rogue is hiding in light obscurement.

1a) Does the Orc get a passive perception vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?
1b) Or does the Orc get a passive perception (at -5 for light obscurement) vs. the stealth check of the Rogue? 1c) If so and the Rogue cannot hide behind cover, during what type of hiding does the Orc get a normal passive perception vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?

Now a different Orc shouts out that someone is in the bushes. The Orc is now warned and alert, but the Rogue is still hidden from this Orc (but not the other Orc).

2a) Does the first Orc now get a perception check vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?
2b) Or does the first Orc get a disadvantaged perception check due to lightly obscured vs. the stealth check of the Rogue?


If you answer:

1a) Yes.
1b) No.
1c) Then you need no answer for 1c.
2a) Yes.
2b) No.

Then you are ignoring the lightly obscured rules for disadvantage.

If you answer:

1a) Yes.
1b) No.
1c) Then you need no answer for 1c.
2a) No.
2b) Yes.

Then it's harder to find someone when you know that they are there than if you do not know they are there.

If you answer:

1a) No.
1b) Yes.
1c) Then you need an answer for 1c.
2a) No.
2b) Yes.

Then you need an answer for 1c. If the Rogue cannot hide behind cover (like a chair) as you claimed, when can he hide and have normal passive perception rolls against his stealth?


Or is your answer that he cannot hide behind cover or behind lightly obscured areas, and can only hide while invisible or behind total cover or behind heavily obscure areas? If so, then hiding really sucks.


Sorry, but this stuff is still vague. If you could clear up these particular questions, I would appreciate it because I have been scratching my head over them.

 

[Johs]

If a rogue were hiding in light obscurant when an orc walked by, you would compare the rogue's stealth check to the orc's passive perception -5.

The rogue cannot "HIDE" behind a chair or light obscurant because hide is an action that can only be performed when there are no enemies who can see you. This isn't to say that a rogue can't be "hidden", using anything you want as an excuse for what he's hiding behind.

If a second orc ACTUALLY detects your rogue, and shouts 'there is a rogue in those bushes' the rogue loses his hiding place, and is revealed to everybody. If an orc is just shouting that to shout it, putting the first orc on high alert, there are no rules for this situation except clearly the intention is for the GM to determine what he feels is appropriate, probably Advantage for the orc when he begins actively searching.

If the rogue is still in light obscurement, there are rules for this too - the Advantage (of the orc searching) and Disadvantage (of the light obscurant) cancel, and the orc is actively searching normally, for Perception Vs Stealth.

The orc would get his normal passive perception if there was not light obscurement.

A Rogue can't hide 'when someone sees him'. He has to hide when no one is around, then when the orc approaches, he's already hiding. If the rogue's stealth check was higher than the orc's passive perception, he's safe. The orc only gets to roll his actual perception if he's 'actively searching' for the rogue.

If there is light cover, the orc's passive perception is -5, and he has disadvantage on his perception (wisdom) check when actively searching.

A rogue can 'hide' with normal stealth vs passive perception whenever there is no opponent's who can see him, and then an opponent walks by OR he's a lightfoot halfling near an ally within 5'. In these cases, there's nothing giving advantage or disadvantage or a penalty to passive perception.

Really, none of these cases are even complicated.

"Hiding really sucks" when there are enemies who can see you, because you need to be either a lightfoot halfling with an ally nearby, or a wood elf with natural phenomenon, or have the Skulker feat with light obscurement. Then hide becomes amazing.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Rulings, not rules. If you have some modicum of common sense, the "vague rules" we have seem perfectly adequate to me.

 

[KarinsDad]

If a second orc ACTUALLY detects your rogue, and shouts 'there is a rogue in those bushes' the rogue loses his hiding place, and is revealed to everybody.

Doesn't this seem odd to you?

That just because Orc two sees him (potentially or even probably from a different angle) that Orc One autosees him? No roll necessary.

 

[KarinsDad]

A rogue can 'hide' with normal stealth vs passive perception whenever there is no opponent's who can see him

But behind what?

You said earlier that cover did not work, only total cover.

In order to hide, doesn't that imply that there has to be something to hide behind?

You seem to be implying that if someone has so much as a big toe sticking out, they can be seen and cannot hide.

 

[Johs]

No, it doesn't. You were detected, the orc is allowed to reveal you on it's turn. We're not talking miles of distance or vague shadows, we're taking about hiding in a bush in combat range.

It would make far less sense if the party entered a room where a rogue was hiding, and the party rolls perception, and 2/5 players detect the rogue, and the other 3 stand around while only 2 are allowed to fight him.

It's a very simple rule and it's pretty much how it should be. Besides that, we're dealing with 'passive perception' now, and not "every single orc gets to roll until 1 gets a 20" which was problematic. Now that issue doesn't really exist.

 

[KarinsDad]

If an orc is just shouting that to shout it, putting the first orc on high alert, there are no rules for this situation except clearly the intention is for the GM to determine what he feels is appropriate, probably Advantage for the orc when he begins actively searching.

If the rogue is still in light obscurement, there are rules for this too - the Advantage (of the orc searching) and Disadvantage (of the light obscurant) cancel, and the orc is actively searching normally, for Perception Vs Stealth.

Where does this advantage rule come from?

Anyone can actively search for something at any time. That doesn't mean that they should get advantage.

 

[Johs]

But behind what?

You said earlier that cover did not work, only total cover.

In order to hide, doesn't that imply that there has to be something to hide behind?

You seem to be implying that if someone has so much as a big toe sticking out, they can be seen and cannot hide.

You're misquoting everything I said. I said cover does not allow you to HIDE, since cover does not stop an opponent from 'seeing' you.

Now you're talking about a separate sense, where the rogue does or doesn't literally have anything to hide behind, when no one is around to oppose him finding a good hiding place.

Yes, I'm saying in 'combat' ducking behind a desk doesn't make enemies go braindead, and not be able to fathom where you are. They know exactly where you are, you are behind the desk.

Now, when you enter a room and someone in that room had been hiding, its a GM's call what you're hiding behind (or who cares). You're now bringing up a case where there is 'nothing' to hide behind, which is again a GM's issue. If he wants to say that you 'cant' hide in broad daylight, or in an empty room, so be it. But the rules aren't talking about this, they're talking about taking the 'hide' action in a normal circumstance.

 

[Johs]

Where does this advantage rule come from?

Anyone can actively search for something at any time. That doesn't mean that they should get advantage.

"If an orc is just shouting that to shout it, putting the first orc on high alert, there are no rules for this situation except clearly the intention is for the GM to determine what he feels is appropriate, probably Advantage for the orc when he begins actively searching."

Advantage is the obvious thing that a GM might determine is appropriate for the first Orc to gain, because a second orc is informing him (without actually detecting you) that a rogue is in the bushes. Either because this makes sense directly, or because the second orc is 'providing help' while the first orc searches.

 

[KarinsDad]

"If an orc is just shouting that to shout it, putting the first orc on high alert, there are no rules for this situation except clearly the intention is for the GM to determine what he feels is appropriate, probably Advantage for the orc when he begins actively searching."

Advantage is the obvious thing that a GM might determine is appropriate for the first Orc to gain, because a second orc is informing him (without actually detecting you) that a rogue is in the bushes. Either because this makes sense directly, or because the second orc is 'providing help' while the first orc searches.

"Guys, be careful, there's probably a trap in the room."

Does that give all of the PCs advantage on their searches? No.

Just because someone yells out a warning doesn't mean that everyone should get advantage.

Please stick to the actual rules in a rules discussion. I'm trying to understand this stealth thing (which seems to be totally non-intuitive that a Rogue could not hide behind 3/4s cover) and it gets tougher if you throw in random DM adjudications which are not clearly called out in the rules.