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

[Corwin]

Either way. Remember, the goose and gander both benefit. iserith's ruling would be fine by me if I played in one of his games. Heck, if you think about it, NPCs probably have more instances of sniping at the PCs than the other way around, in a typical campaign. Think of all the times you will be grateful those sneaky, ambushing archer bad guys aren't hitting *you* with advantage for popping out of cover.

 

[iserith]

Either way. Remember, the goose and gander both benefit. iserith's ruling would be fine by me if I played in one of his games. Heck, if you think about it, NPCs probably have more instances of sniping at the PCs than the other way around, in a typical campaign. Think of all the times you will be grateful those sneaky, ambushing archer bad guys aren't hitting *you* with advantage for popping out of cover.

Now, THERE'S an argument for getting me to change my ruling so I can increase the level of cruelty in my games.

 

[Flamestrike]

I still think my interpretation is better and neatly avoids some of the issues some DMs have with rogues and the particular tactic they try to use. It makes it a little bit harder - more situational really - to get advantage on attacks as compared to how you make your rulings. In all likelihood, the rogue is still going to cause the target to be surprised, but simply doesn't get advantage. That's a big tactical boon. If we were playing D&D 4e, I would certainly rule the way you are here, but my reading of D&D 5e, conflicting tweets and all, tells me that my interpretation is just fine.

The only ruling you need is (consistent again with RAW and RAI as tweeted) is that a creature cannot hide if it can be seen clearly during the attempt.

The hiding attempt. Not the Hide action. 'Hiding' in its plain English language as we would use taking to one another while playing Hide and Seek, via common sense interpretation and not ridiculously parsed into some kind of convoluted gobbledygook rules jargon that ignores object permanence and creates insane consequences like 'jack in the box' rogue.

As in: If a Rogue starts his turn in full view of the enemy, moves into total cover (behind a pillar) on his turn, he is not allowed to use the Hide action once he gets there. He cant hide from a creature that knows where he is and saw him go there, any more than he can attempt an athletics check to jump to the moon. The attempt fails.

You cant generally hide from someone watching you. Simply crawling into a cupboard and closing the door isnt enough. The observer needs to be distracted, or out of the room or whatever and not know with sufficient precision where you are and where you went.

If you apply common sense interpretation to the rules as the rule were meant to be interpreted (and dont see them as rules jargon) they make sense and work fine.

Player: Hey DM can I duck back behind the pillar in this room and hide from the Ogre?
DM: The Ogre you shot in the face last turn? No way, the attack did more damage than the Fighter; the Ogre looks as if he's watching you closely.
Player: (thinks) Hmm OK... I'll feign a look of terror and race outside the room using my movement and my action to dash. The 60' of movement should be enough to double back to other entrance to the room (DM calls for deception check opposed by Ogres insight score for the deception).
DM: (looking at dice score) You reckon the Ogre bought it, and he ignores you, focusing his attention back on the fighter as you race out of the room.
Player: Can I hide now, once I'm out of sight? I want to sneak up on the Ogre from the other doorway adjacent to the one I 'fled the combat' from, now that I've convinced him I'm running away. I still have my bonus action remaining, and have cunning action.
DM: (thinks) Yeah, sure. Roll...

 

[Flamestrike]

Either way. Remember, the goose and gander both benefit. iserith's ruling would be fine by me if I played in one of his games. Heck, if you think about it, NPCs probably have more instances of sniping at the PCs than the other way around, in a typical campaign. Think of all the times you will be grateful those sneaky, ambushing archer bad guys aren't hitting *you* with advantage for popping out of cover.

You dot get advantage for popping out of cover. You get it from attacking from hiding.

You cant pop up and down into the same cover and 're hide'. The observer is watching you now and knows you're there. The jig is up. You might be able to duck back down behind total cover (like a long low wall) and crawl for a round or two, and again attempt to Hide once you're elsewhere.

 

[Hriston]

One way the issue of shooting and peering out from cover can be resolved is by adding a level of abstraction to your encounter design. In the case of a tree trunk, for example, it can be considered part of a heavily obscured area of dense foliage. The DM determines the extent of this area. Some would place it only immediately behind the tree. Others would have it extend out a few inches on either side, and still others might resolve the area to one or more 5' squares. You can see out of and attack from this area just as you can from any other heavily obscured area. The DM could determine that such an area exists behind a row of pillars, for example.

Cover only boosts your AC and Dex saves, or gives you immunity to targeting, and has no effect on whether you can attack someone who is out in the open. The concept of line-of-sight seems to be pretty much absent and has been replaced with 'clear path to target'.

 

[Corwin]

You dot get advantage for popping out of cover. You get it from attacking from hiding.

That's about as pedantic a counter-argument as I've seen of late. Well played. Just remember, context is everything. Did you somehow not get the context of my post and its larger point? Did I fail to get my point across? Did my use of the words "sneaky" and "ambushing" not help enough to make it clear? I'm sorry if I didn't write a five paragraph breakdown of how the sneaky archers were hiding before springing their ambush.

You cant pop up and down into the same cover and 're hide'. The observer is watching you now and knows you're there. The jig is up. You might be able to duck back down behind total cover (like a long low wall) and crawl for a round or two, and again attempt to Hide once you're elsewhere.

That's a fine interpretation and ruling, as long as you and your table are good with it. You won't find support for it in the books, however. And that's unfortunate for any argument you might be trying to make regarding RAW.

 

[iserith]

The only ruling you need is (consistent again with RAW and RAI as tweeted) is that a creature cannot hide if it can be seen clearly during the attempt.

The hiding attempt. Not the Hide action. 'Hiding' in its plain English language as we would use taking to one another while playing Hide and Seek, via common sense interpretation and not ridiculously parsed into some kind of convoluted gobbledygook rules jargon that ignores object permanence and creates insane consequences like 'jack in the box' rogue.

As in: If a Rogue starts his turn in full view of the enemy, moves into total cover (behind a pillar) on his turn, he is not allowed to use the Hide action once he gets there. He cant hide from a creature that knows where he is and saw him go there, any more than he can attempt an athletics check to jump to the moon. The attempt fails.

You cant generally hide from someone watching you. Simply crawling into a cupboard and closing the door isnt enough. The observer needs to be distracted, or out of the room or whatever and not know with sufficient precision where you are and where you went.

If you apply common sense interpretation to the rules as the rule were meant to be interpreted (and dont see them as rules jargon) they make sense and work fine.

Again, our rulings are equally correct. I'm not sure why you'd spend so much time trying, it seems, to say why mine isn't and yours is.

The only difference is that I think when you pop out around cover to attack, you're revealed before the attack and thus no longer hidden. You think it happens after the attack. That's all. In my games, if you've got the benefit of heavy obscurement (and not the detriments), then hide, attack, hide all you want. With cover, it's not so easy.

 

[Flamestrike]

That's a fine interpretation and ruling, as long as you and your table are good with it. You won't find support for it in the books, however.

Yes you do, and I've literally just spent the past 5 pages explaining it.

Ill go again. The problem isnt with the rules, or that they dont exist; its with differing interpretations of that RAW.

Gamist interpretation vs Common sense plain English (the latter of which the rules were intended to be interpreted as).

The rules state you can not attempt to hide when being observed, and most creatures are assumed to be alert to danger and generally aware of all (non hidden) threats around them. Check.

You're imposing an artificial parsing between a persons movement/ ducking down into cover [move] and [the Hide action]. I say this artificial parsing doesn't exist in the text (you're reading/ inferring the parsing into the text by interpreting plain English 'hiding' as meaning the game mechanic term 'the hide action').

I interpret the RAW of 'you cant hide when being observed' as meaning what it means in the real world in (say) a game of hide and seek.

In other words, I don't care if you crawl into full cover (say into a cupboard) with your movement for your turn while under direct observation, and then use your free object interaction to close the door (gaining full cover). Simply breaking LOS doesn't render you able to take the Hide action once you close the door. The rule is you cant hide while being observed. You were observed on your turn going into hiding. As you were observed going into hiding, I know where you are (and am objectively correct in that knowledge), so you cant do it.

I saw you go into hiding, so the precondition for the Stealth check to Hide is not met. No roll allowed, total cover or otherwise. I know where you are, and no amount of anything you do in that cupboard is going to remove object permanency from me, or make me forget where you are. I wont be startled to open the door and see you there, you wont get advantage for throwing the door open and shooting me, and you're certain to lose your game of Hide and Seek.

Get it yet? Because I am getting sick of explaining it over and over defending the same accusation from people that dont understand what I'm saying. Read the above paragraphs and re-read them. At least make an effort to understand the argument so you can at least then take it apart instead of repeating something false that I have already rebutted (I'm ignoring RAW). I'm not ignoring RAW, we just have different interpretations of it.

Mine makes sense. Yours doesn't.

 

[Corwin]

Good luck with all that.

 

[Flamestrike]

Good luck with all that.

At least we've moved away from 'not supported by the RAW' to 'ner neh ner neh ner'.

Its a start.